Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > +	 __release(bitlock);
> 
> This needs a less generic name and maybe a comment explaining that it's 
> not annotating a proper lock? Or maybe we can drop it completely?

Ah, I see that <linux/bit_spinlock.h> does the same thing, so strike that.
-
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:
- [patch 00/10] SLUB: SMP regression tests on Dual Xeon E5345 (8p) and new performance patches
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
  - From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
  - From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
Next by Date: Debugging activated during runtime
Previous by thread: Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
Next by thread: Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
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]