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    [W:0.020 / U:62.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site