lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
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    [W:0.267 / U:33.240 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site