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/
