Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750833AbVLTIG7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:06:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750837AbVLTIG7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:06:59 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:24276 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750833AbVLTIG6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:06:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem From: Arjan van de Ven To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Steven Rostedt , Alan Cox , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells , Alexander Viro , Oleg Nesterov , Benjamin LaHaise In-Reply-To: <43A7BAB5.7020201@yahoo.com.au> References: <20051219013415.GA27658@elte.hu> <20051219042248.GG23384@wotan.suse.de> <20051219155010.GA7790@elte.hu> <20051219195553.GA14155@elte.hu> <43A7BAB5.7020201@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:06:47 +0100 Message-Id: <1135066007.2952.4.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-2.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 937 Lines: 23 > > Then code can switch to "struct mutex" if people want to. And if one > > reason for it ends up being that the code avoids a performance bug in the > > process, all the better ;) > > > > Is this a good idea? Then we will have for a long time different > bits of code with exactly the same synchronisation requirements > using two different constructs that are slightly different. Not to > mention code specifically requiring semaphores would get confusing. > > If we agree mutex is a good idea at all (and I think it is), then > wouldn't it be better to aim for a wholesale conversion rather than > "if people want to"? well most of this will "only" take a few kernel releases ;-) - 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/