On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:22:20 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
