On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Olav Kongas wrote: > > The patch also removes a wait_queue. Not much point having a queue when > > only one task is ever going to be on it! > > Alan, is there a point in removing wait_queue? Doing manual > sleep will add code, while binary size shouldn't shrink much > as wait_queue_head_t is not a big structure.
I considered that when writing the patch. A manual sleep does add source code, but it doesn't add object code (wait_interruptible expands into a rather long macro). Since the net effect on the binary should be a small shrinkage, it seemed worthwhile. Of course, it's also true that the longer sleep code is slightly less easily maintainable. In this case it's pretty much a toss-up; one approach doesn't seem much better or worse than the other. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
