On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 02:03, george anzinger wrote:
> > > + IF_SMP(if (old_base && (new_base != old_base))
> > > + spin_unlock(&old_base->lock);
> > > + )
> >
> > Like here..... SMP dependent ifdef's of spinlock usage... shudder
> >
> Well it does seem like a waste to do spinlock ordering code
> on a UP system...
Well the spin locks will compile away if !CONFIG_SMP, and then the
compiler will remove the empty branch.
But this is not just cleanliness: doesn't this evade the
preempt_disable() in the spin_unlock() on !CONFIG_SMP+CONFIG_PREEMPT?
Robert Love
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:00:14 EST