On 20:29, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Sure, I can do that if James likes the idea. Since not all case > > statements need the BKL, we could add it only to those for which it > > isn't clear that it is unnecessary. > > > > And this would actually improve something. > > I still think it would be a good strategy to first add it to all > (in a essentially nop semantics patch) and then later eliminate > it from the cases that obviously don't need it. James, would you accept such a patch? Andre -- The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
