MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17009.36192.760349.729626@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:26:56 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>,
       Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations
In-Reply-To: <1114735358.9738.36.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
References: <20050428182926.GC16545@kvack.org>
	<20050428234005.A19778@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<1114735358.9738.36.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 877
Lines: 20

Trond Myklebust writes:

> It started from a desire to extend the existing implementations to
> support new features such as asynchronous notification. Currently that
> sort of thing is impossible unless your developer-super-powers include
> the ability to herd 24 different subsystem maintainers into working
> together on a solution.

Well, maybe the slow paths could be unified somewhat, and then these
extra features could be added in the slow paths.  I would support
that.  I certainly don't support replacing the current optimized
fast-path implementations with a lowest-common-denominator thing like
Ben was proposing.

Paul.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/