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, Dec 20, 2005 at 08:32:35PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > So, to sum up, if this path is persued, mutexes will be a bloody
> > disaster on ARM. We'd be far better off sticking to semaphores
> > and ignoring this mutex stuff.
>
> on x86 the fastpath is the same for both basically.. is there a
> fundamental reason it can't be for ARM?

If we're talking about implementing mutexes as a semaphore, then they
will be identical. But what's the point of that? It's a semaphore
which is just called a mutex.

So you might as well just save the patch noise and do nothing instead.
It seems to me that you'll get _exactly_ the same result with a lot
less effort.

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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 20:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans