On Sul, 2003-06-01 at 19:57, chas williams wrote:
> In message <20030529173637.GZ24054@conectiva.com.br>,Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo writes:
> >Sure thing, but hey, spin_lock_irqsave and friends take care of how to behave
> >when in up or smp, i.e. its how all the other drivers use spinlocks 8)
>
> but on a single processor machine (i.e. #undef CONFIG_SMP) there is no
> chance that there will be reads/writes from other processors so i dont
> need any locking OR protection from interrupts. so the degenerate case
> of spin_lock_irqsave() isnt quite as dengerate as i would like for this
> particular spin lock.
Then why are you using spin_lock_irqsave ?
-
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 Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:15 EST