* Stephen C. Tweedie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:20, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > could you try a), how clean does it get? Personally i'm much more in
> > > favor of cleanliness. On the vanilla kernel a spinlock is zero bytes on
> > > UP [the most RAM-sensitive platform], and it's a word on typical SMP.
>
> It's a word, maybe; but it's a word used only by ext3 afaik, and it's
> getting added to the core buffer_head. Not very nice. It certainly
> looks like the easiest short-term way out for a development patch
> series, though.
but ext3 is pretty much the only mainstream FS that still makes use of
buffer_heads, so it should be fine. Any other solution looks _way_ too
hacky - and the current bit-spin-lock solution is less than charming
too.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
