On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:41:24 -0200 Luiz Fernando Capitulino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:34:38 +0100 | Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | | On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 10:30 -0200, Luiz Fernando Capitulino wrote: | | > On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:27:13 +0100 | | > Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > | | > | | | > | > Isn't it right? Is the URB write so fast that switching to atomic_t | | > | > doesn't pay-off? | | > | | | > | an atomic_t access and a spinlock are basically the same price... so | | > | what's the payoff ? | | > | | > One lock less, | | | | where? | | In the 'usb_serial_port', my patch number nine removes the spin lock. struct 'usb_serial_port' I meant. -- Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino ------------------------------------------------------- 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
