From: Blaisorblade <bla...@ya...> - 2005-03-09 19:52:51
|
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 18:12, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:42:33AM +0100, bla...@ya... wrote: > > From: <do...@co...> > > Cc: <use...@li...>, <do...@co...>, > > <am...@ca...>, <gu...@et...> > > > > Unify the spinlock initialization as far as possible. > Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance? > Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than > code-based manual initialisation, especially when the memory > is written to anyway. Agreed, theoretically, but this was done for multiple reasons globally, for instance as a preparation to Ingo Molnar's preemption patches. There was mention of this on lwn.net about this: http://lwn.net/Articles/108719/ Ok? -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade |