Re: [patch 2/3] NUMA slab locking fixes - move irq disabling from cahep->spinlock to l3 lock

Pekka J Enberg
2006-02-07T07:55:57Z

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> IMHO, if you keep something around which is not needed, it might later get
> abused/misused. And what would you add in as comments for the
> cachep->spinlock?
>
> Instead, bold comments on cachep structure stating what all members are
> protected by which lock/mutex should be sufficient no?

Yeah, I guess we can put the spinlock back if we ever need it.

Pekka