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]