![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 13:04 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 07:00 -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > Agreed it makes a lot more sense, i think there could be some places where > > we use preempt_disable to protect against cpu offline which could > > converted, but that can come later.> > > > You know I picked up Robert Love's book the other day and was surprised > to read we are not supposed to be using preempt_disable, there is a > per_cpu interface for exactly this kind of thing. Which is currently > recommended? get_cpu() both ensures that this CPU won't go down, and ensures we won't get scheduled off it. It returns the current processor ID, as well. put_cpu() puts the CPU back. In my experience it's usually clearer than preempt_disable(). Cheers, Rusty. -- A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman - 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 14:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||