From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:02:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:02:28 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:60406 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:02:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-cpu patch 2/3 From: Robert Love To: Rusty Russell Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020718042221.36D114479@lists.samba.org> References: <20020718042221.36D114479@lists.samba.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 18 Jul 2002 10:05:26 -0700 Message-Id: <1027011926.1086.118.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 20:48, Rusty Russell wrote: > Given the ongoing races with smp_processor_id() and preempt, this > makes sense to me. this_cpu() was too generic a name anyway. Very nice, although: How do you reenable preemption? We already have get_cpu() and put_cpu() which do pretty much what you are suggesting (and put_cpu() enables preemption) and are used by code today. If you want to make changes to them, that is fine, but we should keep the interface... Robert Love