Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:14:11 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>
To: Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, 2.6] a simple FIFO implementation
Message-ID: <20040917151411.GY15426@dualathlon.random>
References: <20040917102413.GA3089@crusoe.alcove-fr> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409171228240.4678-100000@localhost.localdomain> <20040917122400.GD3089@crusoe.alcove-fr> <20040917131523.GQ15426@dualathlon.random> <20040917133656.GF3089@crusoe.alcove-fr> <20040917134145.GT15426@dualathlon.random> <20040917140021.GG3089@crusoe.alcove-fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040917140021.GG3089@crusoe.alcove-fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 752
Lines: 15

On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 04:00:21PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> We could do that by having a 'spinlock_t internal_lock' and a 
> 'spinlock_t * lock' fields, in struct kfifo: we always use 'lock' and
> we initialize lock to either &internal_lock or to the user lock.

the whole point was to save memory, this will actually waste another 4/8
(32bit/64bit) bytes...

note that you would still do the locking in your highlevel inlines, it's
just that the caller will have the responsability of allocating a lock.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/