![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | |||||||||||||