Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 06:39:30 GMT From: John Birrell <jb@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 135017 for review Message-ID: <200802080639.m186dURA095351@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=135017 Change 135017 by jb@jb_freebsd1 on 2008/02/08 06:38:38 Move smp_no_rendevous_barrier outside #ifdef SMP. It was coded as though that was the expected compile behaviour. I now need it to behave that way so that a kernel module built without knowledge of whether or not SMP is defined in the kernel will still work in both cases. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/dtrace/src/sys/kern/subr_smp.c#10 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/dtrace/src/sys/kern/subr_smp.c#10 (text+ko) ==== @@ -290,14 +290,6 @@ return 1; } -void -smp_no_rendevous_barrier(void *dummy) -{ -#ifdef SMP - KASSERT((!smp_started),("smp_no_rendevous called and smp is started")); -#endif -} - /* * All-CPU rendezvous. CPUs are signalled, all execute the setup function * (if specified), rendezvous, execute the action function (if specified), @@ -460,3 +452,11 @@ teardown_func(arg); } #endif /* SMP */ + +void +smp_no_rendevous_barrier(void *dummy) +{ +#ifdef SMP + KASSERT((!smp_started),("smp_no_rendevous called and smp is started")); +#endif +}
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802080639.m186dURA095351>