lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Quite frankly, what has disgusted me about this mutex discussion is the
> totally specious arguments for the new mutexes that just rubs me entirely
> the wrong way.
>
[...]
>
> In other words: if people didn't mix up issues that had nothing to do with
> this into it, I'd be happier. I've already said that a mutex that does
> _not_ replace semaphore (and doesn't mess with naming) is acceptable.

Oh if it is so we are in _violent_ agreement then. I don't dispute that
at all and I pretty agree with a separate namespace for mutexes.
Actually I think no one contested that either.

Current semaphores can be migrated to mutexes individually when that
makes sense to do so, separately.

With regards to my _implementation_ concerns about the proposed mutex
patches I guess I can discuss them with Ingo (and an actual patch is
coming to fix them).


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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-20 23:45    [W:0.163 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site