Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately

Quoting r. Zach Brown <[email protected]>:
> Is that just a side-effect of
> relying on mthca_wq_init() to reset the non-lock members?

Yes.


> If you're
> concerned about microoptimization it seems like this could be avoided.

This is off the fast path so I think Roland's idea was we should only care
about code size. But might be worth thinking this over, anyway. Thanks!

-- 
MST
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
    • From: Zach Brown <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC 3/8] Move HIGHMEM counter into highmem.c/.h
• Next by Date: Re: [Suspend2][ 07/13] [Suspend2] Page_alloc paranoia.
• Previous by thread: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
• Next by thread: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
• 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]