![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> Yes, I'm all for the full cpumask abstraction. > > > Where do we stand wrt pass-by-reference? I remember there was initially > some concern that lugging 512-bit scalars around by value was expensive, so > Bill's original work was at least geared toward pass-by-reference? > That is a valid concern. One I hadn't really thought about as the patch is coming from SGI :) kernel/sched.c doesn't pass around cpumask_t's anywhere critical anymore (this used to be a problem). Any other important places spring to mind? - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||