Message-ID: <47763FC2.8040701@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:38:26 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071216 SeaMonkey/1.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
CC: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>, gregkh@suse.de,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] pci : Use mutex instead of semaphore in driver
 core
References: <20071229011057.GG2883@darkstar.te-china.tietoenator.com> <20071229025506.GL11638@parisc-linux.org> <477632A7.6050208@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20071229121630.GP11638@parisc-linux.org>
In-Reply-To: <20071229121630.GP11638@parisc-linux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1153
Lines: 27

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 12:42:31PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> I think a broken-up patch series isn't totally wrong to do for a first
>> look at these RFC patches.  Of course the series needs to become a
>> single patch before it is committed to a tree whose history needs to
>> support bijection, e.g. -mm.
> 
> For this kind of patch (converting a semaphore to a mutex), it is
> necessary to see everywhere that changes.  There's no way to tell if what
> he's doing is safe without seeing all the places that have to change,
> and verifying whether it breaks any of the rules in include/linux/mutex.h

Exactly.

> For other kinds of patches, you could well be right.

You can see the whole of the changes by looking at the whole of Dave's
postings.  (This would of course be simpler if it was a single posting.)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== ==-- ===-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/