On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:12, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible.
> Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance? > Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than > code-based manual initialisation, especially when the memory > is written to anyway. Agreed, theoretically, but this was done for multiple reasons globally, for instance as a preparation to Ingo Molnar's preemption patches. There was mention of this on lwn.net about this: http://lwn.net/Articles/108719/ Ok? -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
