On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote: > > No, there can be other reasons too. For example, suppose one routine that > > gets a read lock calls another that does the same thing. That works well > > with rw-semaphores but not with regular ones. That's not contention, it's > > something else (poor design perhaps -- but Duncan has his reasons). > > For usbfs, the only reason to use a rwsem is to reduce contention. I've done > no measurements, so I have no idea if the lock is heavily contended or not.
So, without measurements I say to leave it as a semaphore. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
