Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 03:13:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 03:13:58 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:269 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 03:13:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] High-res-timers part 1 (core) take 20 From: Robert Love To: george anzinger Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <3DF44031.58A12F66@mvista.com> References: <3DF2F8D9.6CA4DC85@mvista.com> <1039341009.1483.3.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <3DF44031.58A12F66@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1039422115.15169.7.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 09 Dec 2002 03:21:55 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 839 Lines: 24 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/