lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
FromArjan van de Ven <>
DateTue, 13 Dec 2005 15:44:22 +0100
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