![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:35 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote: > David Howells wrote: > > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > > >>It seems to me it would be far far saner to define something like > >> > >> sleep_lock(&foo) > >> sleep_unlock(&foo) > >> sleep_trylock(&foo) > > > > Which would be a _lot_ more work. It would involve about ten times as many > > changes, I think, and thus be more prone to errors. > > "lots of work" has never been a valid reason for not doing a kernel > change... > > In this case, introducing a new API means the changes can be made over time. in this case, doing this change gradual I think is a mistake. We should do all of the in-kernel code at least... - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-12-13 15:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||