On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:29:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 08:14:29PM +0800, Kevin Hao wrote: > > The jump_label_init() run in a very early stage, even before the > > sched_init(). So there is no chance for concurrent access of the > > jump label table. > > It also doesn't hurt to have it. Its better to be consistent and > conservative with locking unless there is a pressing need.
Yes, it has no real hurt. IMHO it may cause confusion that the function jump_label_init() may run in two different thread context simultaneously. Anyway if you guys don't think so, I can drop this patch. Thanks, Kevin
pgpM0m7ashQJz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
