Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030257AbVLVSez (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:34:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030309AbVLVSey (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:34:54 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:46389 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030257AbVLVSer (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:34:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:34:46 -0500 (EST) From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] mutex subsystem, -V5 In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: nico@localhost.localdomain To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , lkml , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Jes Sorensen , Zwane Mwaikambo , Oleg Nesterov , David Howells , Alan Cox , Benjamin LaHaise , Steven Rostedt , Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Russell King Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20051222153717.GA6090@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 892 Lines: 22 On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Christoph Lameter wrote: > I would like some more flexible way of dealing with locks in general. The > code for the MUTEXes seems to lock us into a specific way of realizing > locks again. Yes, and that's what I'm attempting to prevent. The low-level locking mechanism for mutexes needs to have the weakest (and simplest) semantics possible without compromising the generic code from doing its job. Setting on a strict pure atomic decrement (the strictest semantic) or an atomic swap (better but still a tiny bit stricter than necessary) is not required for proper mutex support with the current core code. Nicolas - 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/