Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] per-cpu patch 2/3 | Date | Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:36:20 +1000 |
| |
In message <1027011926.1086.118.camel@sinai> you write: > On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 20:48, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Given the ongoing races with smp_processor_id() and preempt, this > > makes sense to me. this_cpu() was too generic a name anyway. > > Very nice, although: > > How do you reenable preemption?
I think you are confused: this patch is an enhancement of the per-cpu variable infrastructure. I was making an analogy with smp_processor_id().
+#define get_cpu_var(var) ({ preempt_disable(); __get_cpu_var(var); }) +#define put_cpu_var(var) preempt_enable()
Clear? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |