Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Apr 2003 05:24:39 -0500 | From | Chuck Ebbert <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] New cpu macro and i386 cleanup |
| |
Robert Love wrote:
> I like, although I am not hot on the name, but that is just taste.
I found myself wishing for C++ just for the function overloading so it could be 'is_current(cpu)' or similar.
> One minor nit: it is not preempt-safe.
I was wondering whether the code I converted was running with preempt disabled or not but didn't check. (The very thought of preempt on SMP scares me anyway, so I avoid it.)
smp_processor_id() is not preempt-safe either, since the id could change before you even get a chance to use the value. How many thousands of lines of code remain that were written assuming things would not change underneath them in kernel mode?
> Maybe put a comment above it like:
How about one for the whole kernel?
/********** * WARNING: Use preempt at your own risk. **********/
-- Chuck I am not a number! - 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/
| |