lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20
FromRobert Love <>
Date09 Dec 2002 03:21:55 -0500
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 02:03, george anzinger wrote:

> > > +     IF_SMP(if (old_base && (new_base != old_base))
> > > +            spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
> > > +             )
> > 
> > Like here..... SMP dependent ifdef's of spinlock usage... shudder
> > 
> Well it does seem like a waste to do spinlock ordering code
> on a UP system...

Well the spin locks will compile away if !CONFIG_SMP, and then the
compiler will remove the empty branch.

But this is not just cleanliness: doesn't this evade the
preempt_disable() in the spin_unlock() on !CONFIG_SMP+CONFIG_PREEMPT?

	Robert Love

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31    [W:0.235 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans