On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:34:49PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 16:26, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> > Please help my education... after looking at the code, I don't see why
> > the BUG_ON was removed rather than made dependent on SMP, assuming that
> > the BK comment and my hasty reading of code actually mean that it did work
> > for SMP.
> >
> > Is this a solid "can't happen" now and no test needed, or is a better
> > test in the works, or ???
> >
> > I didn't try to compile it, so there may be something I'm totally
> > missing.
>
> While he could of wrapped the test dependent in #ifdef/#endif
> CONFIG_SMP, the test really is not overly needed. It is more a result
> of the previous code, which Bob Miller himself fixed up and then much
> rewrote the locking for.
>
> Since he recently did the cleanup (and even added that BUG_ON) I trust
> he knows if we can remove it.
>
> Robert Love
As Robert has sermized... When I did the cleanup I debated whether to put
the BUG_ON() in there in the first place. I used it as an extra bit of
paranoia not knowing that it would not return correct results on a UP.
-- Bob Miller Email: rem@osdl.org Open Source Development Lab Phone: 503.626.2455 Ext. 17 - 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 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 22:00:26 EST