Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:43:03 -0500 (EST) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |