On Thursday 10 March 2005 09:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:52 +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > 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
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:52 +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > 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, theoreticall
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:12, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible.
> Are y
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:52:24PM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:12, Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, linux-os wrote:
> We need to retain the spin_lock_init(&lock) because not all spin-locks
> are allocated at compile-time. They might be allocated from kmalloc()
> on startup, probably in a structure, along with other so-called
> global data.
Not to worry my good man, it's not
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not convinced about the practicality of converting all static
initialisations to code-based initialisations though
This is the first one I recall seeing. All the other conversions were
replacing
static
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced about the practicality of converting all static
> initialisations to code-based initialisations though
This is the first one I recall seeing. All the other conversions were replacing
static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCK
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible.
Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance?
Someti
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible.
Signed-off-by: Amit Gud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Domen Puncer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL P
9 matches
Mail list logo
