Re: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock

[Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.Helsinki.FI>]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> IMHO, if you keep something around which is not needed, it might later get
> abused/misused.  And what would you add in as comments for the
> cachep->spinlock?  
> 
> Instead,  bold comments on cachep structure stating what all members are 
> protected by which lock/mutex should be sufficient no?

Yeah, I guess we can put the spinlock back if we ever need it.

			Pekka
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/