Re: [PATCH -mm] x86_64 UP needs smp_call_function_single

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:22:20 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 
> > btw, does anyone know why the SMP versions of this function use
> > spin_lock_bh(&call_lock)?
> 
> that makes no sense (neither the get_cpu()/put_cpu() gymnastics) if this
> is called with irqs disabled all the time.

smp_call_function_single() must be called with local interrupts ENabled.

But why isn't it just spin_lock()?

<looks>

Eric simply copied that code from ia64, which added the spin_lock_bh()
in 2.4.8.  Ho-hum.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/