> Please help my education... after looking at the code, I don't see why
> the BUG_ON was removed rather than made dependent on SMP, assuming that
> the BK comment and my hasty reading of code actually mean that it did work
> for SMP.
>
> Is this a solid "can't happen" now and no test needed, or is a better
> test in the works, or ???
>
> I didn't try to compile it, so there may be something I'm totally
> missing.
While he could of wrapped the test dependent in #ifdef/#endif
CONFIG_SMP, the test really is not overly needed. It is more a result
of the previous code, which Bob Miller himself fixed up and then much
rewrote the locking for.
Since he recently did the cleanup (and even added that BUG_ON) I trust
he knows if we can remove it.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/