Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:55:54 +0200 (EET) | From | Pekka J Enberg <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |