Re: [patch 1/1] unified spinlock initialization arch/um/drivers/port_kern.c

[Blaisorblade]

On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:12, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: <domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <user-mode-linux-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <domen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > <amitg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gud@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible.

> Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance?
> Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than
> code-based manual initialisation, especially when the memory
> is written to anyway.
Agreed, theoretically, but this was done for multiple reasons globally, for 
instance as a preparation to Ingo Molnar's preemption patches. There was 
mention of this on lwn.net about this:

http://lwn.net/Articles/108719/

Ok?
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/