On Mon, 4 June 2007 00:21:41 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 03 June 2007, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(compr_mutex);
> > +
>
> It seems you define a static compre_mutex in both segment.c and in compr.c,
> and always lock them both at the same time. Is that a correct observation?
> Is it intentional, or an oversight on your side?
Lame coding on my side. Seems to have gone lost in my notes, but this
mutex should get removed and the protected memory made per-superblock.
Unlike the zlib workspace it does not consume 300k, so there is no
excuse for it here.
Jörn
--
Joern's library part 9:
http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Publications/Gus/TwelveWays.html
-
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/
[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]
