![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In message <1054497613.5863.4.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk>,Alan Cox writes: >> but on a single processor machine (i.e. #undef CONFIG_SMP) there is no >> chance that there will be reads/writes from other processors so i dont >> need any locking OR protection from interrupts. so the degenerate case >> of spin_lock_irqsave() isnt quite as dengerate as i would like for this >> particular spin lock. > >Then why are you using spin_lock_irqsave ? meaning just use spin_lock() or what? - 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 12:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||