On Oct 16, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Keith Packard wrote: > On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:56:43 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> n_events_at_tail ? I'm not really sure what to call it. > > If I had a good idea, I would have suggested it :-) Perhaps just don't > bother then, unless you have a sudden brain wave. > >> It's not really any different. I'm just doing an optimization >> there... Rather than just setting everything to 0 individually, just >> do one big memset. > > See, it's a separate change from resizing the event queue.
But before this patch, doing the memset would probably not be an optimization. It would be a waste mem writes. The reason it makes sense to do it now is because events changed from a statically allocated array (which had all its elements initialized) to a pointer. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
