[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:35 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > Alan Cox <> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-13 15:47    [W:0.169 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site