lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: inconsistent usage of
On Tue, Apr 22 2003, Heiko.Rabe@InVision.de wrote:
> I found inconsistent behavoir between SMP oand none SMP kernels using spin
> locks inside driver programming
> As first an simple example:
>
> static spinlock_t qtlock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
> void foo()
> {
> unsigned long local_flags;
> spin_lock_irqsave (&qtlock, local_flags);
> spin_lock_irqsave (&qtlock, local_flags);
> }

[snip rant]

Check the spinlock implementation. All the above does in UP is
disable/save interrupts twice. The actual spinlock is a nop. As only one
processor can be executing inside the kernel in UP, you only need to
guard against interrupts.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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 13:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans