![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:03:13PM -0800, george anzinger wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 08:46, george anzinger wrote: > > > > > +/* > > > + * Here is an SMP helping macro... > > > + */ > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > +#define IF_SMP(a) a > > > +#else > > > +#define IF_SMP(a) > > > +#endif > > > > ehmmmmm personally I would consider any need of this ugly and evil > > > > > + 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... that's why spinlocks are effectively nops on UP. What you say is true of just about every spinlock user, and no they shouldn't all do some IF_SMP() thing; the spinlock itself should be (and is) zero on UP - 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 11:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||