Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> Hey, that's not bad for a small change! 50% of potential programming
> errors sent to the dustbin without ever being encountered.
Then you replace errors with inefficiency - nobody discovers that
you needlessly take a lock twice. They notice OOPSes though, the
lock gurus can then debug it.
Trading performance for simplicity is ok in some cases, but I have a strong
felling this isn't one of them. Consider how people optimize locking
by shaving off a single cycle when they can, and try to avoid
locking as much as possible for that big smp scalability.
This is something better done right - people should just take the
trouble.
Helge Hafting
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:33 EST