lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 9 Dec 2002 03:53:47 -0500
FromArjan van de Ven <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20
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