Re: [PATCH] break_lock forever broken

[Hugh Dickins]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 							\
> > +	if ((lock)->break_lock)						\
> > +		(lock)->break_lock = 0;					\
> >  }									\
> if it really worth an conditional there? the cacheline of the lock is
> made dirty anyway on unlock, so writing an extra 0 is like almost free
> (maybe half a cycle) while a conditional jump can be 100+....

I wondered the same, I don't know and would defer to those who do:
really I was just following the style of where break_lock is set above,
which follows soon (unless preempted) after a _raw_whatever_trylock.

Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/