![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL) |
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:03:13PM -0800, george anzinger wrote: Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 08:46, george anzinger wrote: +/*
+ * Here is an SMP helping macro... + */ +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +#define IF_SMP(a) a +#else +#define IF_SMP(a) +#endif ehmmmmm personally I would consider any need of this ugly and evil + IF_SMP(if (old_base && (new_base != old_base))
+ spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
+ ) Like here..... SMP dependent ifdef's of spinlock usage... shudder that's why spinlocks are effectively nops on UP. What you say is true of just about every spinlock user, and no they shouldn't all do some IF_SMP() thing; the spinlock itself should be (and is) zero on UP But with preemption, they really are not nops on UP... -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml | ||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:5.083 / U:0.140 seconds] ©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||