Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:01:22 -0500
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 04:57:30PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Sez who? If it's not documented in the kernel source, I don't believe
> it.
The notifier interface is supposed to be *light weight*. Adding locks
that get taken on every call basically changes the concept entirely. The
cache misses notifiers add are measurable overhead, with locks being far
worse.
-ben
--
"You know, I've seen some crystals do some pretty trippy ***, man."
Don't Email: <dont@xxxxxxxxx>.
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- From: Alan Stern
- Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- From: Benjamin LaHaise
- Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- From: Alan Stern
- Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- Next by Date: Re: [Pcihpd-discuss] Re: [patch 0/4] Hot Dock/Undock support
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
- Index(es):