Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:04:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.10-mm1
Message-ID: <20050104090408.GA12197@elte.hu>
References: <20050103011113.6f6c8f44.akpm@osdl.org> <20050103115120.GB18408@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050103115120.GB18408@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1135
Lines: 30


* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> > remove-the-bkl-by-turning-it-into-a-semaphore.patch
> >   remove the BKL by turning it into a semaphore
> 
> This _smp_processor_id() mess is horribly ugly.  Do you really need
> that debug check?

wrt. necessity, it's quite handy: check out the 2.6.10 changelog, almost
all preemption bugs wrt. smp_processor_id() were found this way.

what precisely is the 'mess' you are referring to?

is it the way the include file falls back to the original
smp_processor_id() definition if an arch doesnt define
__smp_processor_id()? I could get rid of that and just require every
arch to define __smp_processor_id().

or is it the addition of _smp_processor_id() as a way to signal 'this
smp_processor_id() call in a preemptible region is fine, trust me'? We
could do smp_processor_id_preempt() or some other name - any better
suggestions?

	Ingo
-
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/