From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 28 22:26:12 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC85016A421;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:26:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E9B13C461;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:26:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lASMMwpk092821;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:22:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:25:38 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <20071128.152538.255407024.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: alfred@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071128221724.GS71382@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20071128.151021.709401576.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<20071128221724.GS71382@elvis.mu.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Code review request: small optimization to localtime.c
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:26:13 -0000

In message: <20071128221724.GS71382@elvis.mu.org>
            Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> writes:
: See pthread_once...

Good point.  Much of the time code tries hard to avoid thread related
things, but in all but one of these cases pthread_once() would be
better than what's there now.

Warner