On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:19:15AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Here's an idea I had recently to improve the klist library; tell me what > you think. As a space optimization, instead of storing a struct > completion in every klist_node, just put a wait_queue_header in struct > klist. Under normal usage it's very rare to remove more than one > klist_node from a klist at any time, so false wakeups won't be a problem.
That only saves us a whopping 4 bytes per node, not really that much :) And it would probably make the code messier... > On Tue, 3 May 2005, Greg KH wrote: > > > At first glance, this looks sane. Did you test this code out? And if > > so, care to resend with a Signed-off-by: line? > > Sorry, that should have been made more clear. The code was posted just as > an RFC, not as a real submission. I haven't yet tested the problem case, > but I will. Great, please let me know when you do. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
