Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964965AbVLSU61 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:58:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964967AbVLSU61 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:58:27 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:31112 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964965AbVLSU60 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:58:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:57:41 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Benjamin LaHaise , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Steven Rostedt , Alan Cox , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells , Alexander Viro , Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem Message-ID: <20051219205741.GA24004@elte.hu> References: <20051219013415.GA27658@elte.hu> <20051219042248.GG23384@wotan.suse.de> <20051219155010.GA7790@elte.hu> <20051219192537.GC15277@kvack.org> <20051219201118.GA22198@elte.hu> <20051219203206.GC20824@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051219203206.GC20824@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1122 Lines: 23 * Russell King wrote: > However, the argument _against_ making things generic is that they > become less optimised for specific architectures. I'm still not > convinced that the genirq stuff is as optimal for ARM as the existing > code is, so I've little motivation to move to the genirq stuff. > (Though I will try to make things easier for those who would like to.) i'm quite convinced that the final phase of the genirq conversion will work out fine: because it mostly meant the conceptual adoption of your ARM IRQ layer (the irqchips approach), with compatibility mechanisms for all the other arches, with some minor SMP improvements ontop of it. So i'd be surprised if you found _that_ one inadequate :-) If there's any detail that ARM doesnt need, i'm sure we can find a non-runtime solution for it. But i think i digress. Ingo - 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/