![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | |||||||||||