randy_dunlap wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:26:31 -0700 Geoff Levand wrote: > > | This patch makes posix_bump_timer() consistent with common convention > | by expecting a pointer to the structure be passed. > | > | Please apply. > > Does it matter other than for consistency? > > E.g., in a large system with thousands of timers, it seems that it > could (at least theoretically) have a negative impact by using a > pointer dereference instead of a known fixed address. > or am I just imagining that? >
I pulled this out of the HRT patches. In general it was agreed that the change is for the best. -Geoff - 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/
