On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 15:21 +0900, KUROSAWA Takahiro wrote:
> Takahashi-san,
>
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:58:20 +0900 (JST)
> Hirokazu Takahashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Kurosawa-san, how do you think these changes against your code?
> > > > Obviously this change may also affects your cpumeter interface code.
> > >
> > > No problem for me.
> > > But the problem is that people who don't know cpu_rc is also usable
> > > for CKRM wouldn't think those changes were essential.
> >
> > You mean it may be hard to convince CPUSETS guys to accept the changes
> > without any good reason, right?
if you ask me, code being used by some other feature is good enough a
reason :)...
>
> That's right.
> There might be some reason to move cpu_rc and cpu_rc_domain structure
> definitions into cpu_rc.h. But I can't find out other good reasons
> to move cpu_rc_lock()/cpu_rc_unlock() into cpu_rc.h so far.
why do we need these wrappers in the first place ? Can't we just use
spin_lock() and spin_unlock() directly ?
>
> Thanks,
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
