On Thu, 04 Oct 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/04/2018 03:16 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 12-09-18 15:28:52, Waiman Long wrote:
From: Davidlohr Bueso
Instead of the current O(N) implementation, at the cost
of adding an atomic counter, we can convert the call to
an atomic_read(). The counter onl
On 10/04/2018 03:16 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 12-09-18 15:28:52, Waiman Long wrote:
>> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>>
>> Instead of the current O(N) implementation, at the cost
>> of adding an atomic counter, we can convert the call to
>> an atomic_read(). The counter only serves for accounting
>> em
On Wed 12-09-18 15:28:52, Waiman Long wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> Instead of the current O(N) implementation, at the cost
> of adding an atomic counter, we can convert the call to
> an atomic_read(). The counter only serves for accounting
> empty to non-empty transitions, and vice versa; t
From: Davidlohr Bueso
Instead of the current O(N) implementation, at the cost
of adding an atomic counter, we can convert the call to
an atomic_read(). The counter only serves for accounting
empty to non-empty transitions, and vice versa; therefore
only modified twice for each of the lists during
4 matches
Mail list logo
