Re: [PATCH] Add initial implementation of klist helpers.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Greg KH wrote:

> Internally, that routine takes the klist's lock, decrements the reference
> count of the previous klist_node and increments the count of the next
> klist_node. It then drops the lock and returns.

Sacrificing performance for scalability has never been
the right thing in the past.  Why would it be right now?

-- 
The Theory of Escalating Commitment: "The cost of continuing mistakes is
borne by others, while the cost of admitting mistakes is borne by yourself."
  -- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Add initial implementation of klist helpers.
  - From: Greg KH <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] Add initial implementation of klist helpers.
  - From: Greg KH <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [patch 04/12] block/xd: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()
Next by Date: Re: Tuner module is too verbose
Previous by thread: [PATCH] PCI: fix show_modalias() function due to attribute change
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Add initial implementation of klist helpers.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]