Re: [PATCH] New cpu macro and i386 cleanup

[Robert Love]

On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 05:24, Chuck Ebbert wrote:

> I was wondering whether the code I converted was running with preempt
> disabled or not but didn't check.  (The very thought of preempt on
> SMP scares me anyway, so I avoid it.)

On a glance, it looked like at least some of them were.

> smp_processor_id() is not preempt-safe either, since the id could
> change before you even get a chance to use the value.  How many
> thousands of lines of code remain that were written assuming things
> would not change underneath them in kernel mode?

Code that needs the processor number to remain fixed now uses get_cpu()
and put_cpu() which disable preemption.

> > Maybe put a comment above it like:
> 
> 
> How about one for the whole kernel?
> 
>         /**********
>          * WARNING: Use preempt at your own risk.
>          **********/

No :)

	Robert Love