On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:24:09AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 09:12 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:48:17AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 10:23 -0500, chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote: > > > > yes, but dont call it 8/7 since that doesnt make sense. > > > > > > It made enough sense when it was a single patch appended to a thread of > > > 7 other patches from Krzysztof. But now it's all got a little more > > > complex, so I've tried to collect together the latest version of > > > everything we've discussed: > > > > There was also discussion about patch 9/7 "pppoatm: wakeup after ATM > > unlock only when it's needed". > > True. Is that really necessary? How often is the lock actually taken? Is > it once per packet that PPP sends (which is mostly just LCP > echo/response during an active connection)? And does that really warrant > the optimisation? > > This is a tasklet that we used to run after absolutely *every* packet, > remember. Optimising *that* made sense, but I'm less sure it's worth the > added complexity for this case. As I have a vague recollection that we > decided we couldn't use the existing BLOCKED bit for it... or can we? > > Can this work? Feel free to replace that test_bit() and the > corresponding comment, with a test_and_clear_bit() and a new comment > explaining *why* it's safe... while I go make another cup of tea. >
ok, I think that we should just drop that patch, with test_bit() I think it's no longer an optimization. Krzysiek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/