lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 7 Feb 2006 09:55:54 +0200 (EET)
FromPekka J Enberg <>
SubjectRe: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> IMHO, if you keep something around which is not needed, it might later get
> abused/misused.  And what would you add in as comments for the
> cachep->spinlock?  
> 
> Instead,  bold comments on cachep structure stating what all members are 
> protected by which lock/mutex should be sufficient no?

Yeah, I guess we can put the spinlock back if we ever need it.

			Pekka
-
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: 2006-02-07 08:58    [from the cache]
©2003-2008