[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181009105427.GA102322@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:54:27 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
jgross@...e.com, chao.p.peng@...el.com, chao.gao@...el.com,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, michael.h.kelley@...rosoft.com,
tianyu.lan@...rosoft.com, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] locking/pvqspinlock, hv: Enable PV qspinlock for
Hyper-V
* Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Follow PV spinlock mechanism to implement the callback functions
> to allow the CPU idling and kicking operations on Hyper-V.
> +#if defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> + smp_ops.smp_prepare_boot_cpu = hv_smp_prepare_boot_cpu;
> +#endif
What's wrong with using the common pattern of:
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists