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    [W:0.020 / U:30.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site