Andrea Righi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:15:34AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> It's very bad if cacheline of spinlock is different from data field, in >> future. > > Regarding the new attributes, policy can be surely an unsigned int or > even less (now only 1 bit is used!), maybe we can just add an unsigned > int flags, and encode also potential future informations there. agreed. > > Moreover, are we sure we really need an unsigned long long for failcnt? > I think "int" is enough for failcnt. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
