From: Paulo Marques <pmarques@grupopie.com>
To: Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>
Cc: William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>,
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem?
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:31:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41D53876.9050704@grupopie.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412310537420.26032@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost>
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> [...]
>> #include <linux/nfs_fs.h>
>> #include <linux/nfs_fs_sb.h>
>>@@ -278,6 +279,7 @@
>> char *fs_names = __getname();
>> char *p;
>> char b[BDEVNAME_SIZE];
>>+ int tryagain = 20;
>>
>
> Ok, I'm nitpicking here, but why int and not short? are we likely to ever
> want to wait for more than 2 minutes? and if we want to wait ~3min, then
> unsigned short should do just fine (and unsigned would even be logical
> since negative retry value doesn't make any sense)....
Usually it is better to use int's instead of short's because memory
accesses for CPU word size data are faster.
With some CPUs, decrementing a short will probably involve reading a int
from memory, updating only the correct section of it, and then writing
an int. It is only worth the save if you're trying to make a very used
struct have a good 2^N size, or something like that.
Of course, things will get more complex with data caches, bus sizes,
etc., but I think the premise that the CPU will be more confortable
handling its native data size still holds.
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-31 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-27 19:56 waiting 10s before mounting root filesystem? William Park
2004-12-27 20:10 ` Trent Lloyd
2004-12-27 21:23 ` Andreas Unterkircher
2004-12-28 1:54 ` Eric Lammerts
2004-12-29 0:59 ` William Park
2004-12-29 1:38 ` Jesper Juhl
2004-12-29 1:56 ` William Park
2004-12-29 12:49 ` Paulo Marques
2004-12-29 19:15 ` William Park
2004-12-29 19:34 ` Paulo Marques
2004-12-29 20:59 ` William Park
2004-12-29 21:26 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2004-12-31 19:32 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-12-29 21:53 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2004-12-29 22:56 ` Jesper Juhl
2004-12-30 15:25 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-12-30 23:45 ` Jesper Juhl
2004-12-31 1:45 ` Jesper Juhl
2004-12-31 3:58 ` William Park
2004-12-31 4:41 ` Jesper Juhl
2004-12-31 11:31 ` Paulo Marques [this message]
2004-12-31 9:49 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-31 8:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-12-31 11:40 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-31 11:26 ` Paulo Marques
2004-12-31 8:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-12-31 11:42 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-31 12:04 ` Paulo Marques
2004-12-31 17:36 ` William Park
2004-12-31 17:48 ` Tomasz Torcz
2004-12-31 18:18 ` William Park
2004-12-31 0:22 ` William Park
[not found] <fa.nc4oh06.1j1872e@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.nalafoa.1ih25aa@ifi.uio.no>
2004-12-31 12:33 ` Bodo Eggert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41D53876.9050704@grupopie.com \
--to=pmarques@grupopie.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=juhl-lkml@dif.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=opengeometry@yahoo.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox