![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > remove-the-bkl-by-turning-it-into-a-semaphore.patch > > remove the BKL by turning it into a semaphore > > This _smp_processor_id() mess is horribly ugly. Do you really need > that debug check? wrt. necessity, it's quite handy: check out the 2.6.10 changelog, almost all preemption bugs wrt. smp_processor_id() were found this way. what precisely is the 'mess' you are referring to? is it the way the include file falls back to the original smp_processor_id() definition if an arch doesnt define __smp_processor_id()? I could get rid of that and just require every arch to define __smp_processor_id(). or is it the addition of _smp_processor_id() as a way to signal 'this smp_processor_id() call in a preemptible region is fine, trust me'? We could do smp_processor_id_preempt() or some other name - any better suggestions? Ingo - 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 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||