Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S285595AbUKASP5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:15:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S285594AbUKASP5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:15:57 -0500 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:19328 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S284719AbUKASEk (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:04:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [CPU-HOTPLUG] convert cpucontrol to be a rwsem From: Lee Revell To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Dominik Brodowski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au In-Reply-To: References: <20041101084337.GA7824@dominikbrodowski.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:04:37 -0500 Message-Id: <1099332277.3647.43.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 720 Lines: 18 On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 07:00 -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > Agreed it makes a lot more sense, i think there could be some places where > we use preempt_disable to protect against cpu offline which could > converted, but that can come later. > You know I picked up Robert Love's book the other day and was surprised to read we are not supposed to be using preempt_disable, there is a per_cpu interface for exactly this kind of thing. Which is currently recommended? Lee - 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/