Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030221AbVLVRUY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:20:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030223AbVLVRUY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:20:24 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:6578 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030221AbVLVRUX (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:20:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:20:19 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , lkml , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Jes Sorensen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Alan Cox , Benjamin LaHaise , Steven Rostedt , Andi Kleen , Russell King Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 Message-ID: <20051222172019.GB6038@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Nicolas Pitre , Ingo Molnar , lkml , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Jes Sorensen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Alan Cox , Benjamin LaHaise , Steven Rostedt , Andi Kleen , Russell King References: <20051222114147.GA18878@elte.hu> <20051222115329.GA30964@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i 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: 1324 Lines: 23 On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:34:18AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > I'm with Christoph here. Please preserve my > arch_mutex_fast_lock/arch_mutex_fast_unlock helpers. I did it that way > because the most important thing they bring is flexibility where it is > needed i.e. in architecture specific implementations. And done that way > the architecture specific part is well abstracted with the minimum > semantics allowing flexibility in the implementation. > > I insist on that because, even if ARM currently relies on the atomic > swap behavior, on ARMv6 at least this can be improved even further, but > a special implementation which is neither a fully qualified atomic > decrement nor an atomic swap is needed. That's why I insist that you > should keep my arch_mutex_fast_lock and friends (rename them if you > wish) and remove __ARCH_WANT_XCHG_BASED_ATOMICS entirely. I think one of us should so a new version based on that scheme and without all the new atomic helpers, then we can compare it against the current version. I'll try to once I'll get some time. - 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/