Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:20:19 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 |
| |
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:34:18AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > I'm with Christoph here. Please preserve my > arch_mutex_fast_lock/arch_mutex_fast_unlock helpers. I did it that way > because the most important thing they bring is flexibility where it is > needed i.e. in architecture specific implementations. And done that way > the architecture specific part is well abstracted with the minimum > semantics allowing flexibility in the implementation. > > I insist on that because, even if ARM currently relies on the atomic > swap behavior, on ARMv6 at least this can be improved even further, but > a special implementation which is neither a fully qualified atomic > decrement nor an atomic swap is needed. That's why I insist that you > should keep my arch_mutex_fast_lock and friends (rename them if you > wish) and remove __ARCH_WANT_XCHG_BASED_ATOMICS entirely.
I think one of us should so a new version based on that scheme and without all the new atomic helpers, then we can compare it against the current version. I'll try to once I'll get some time. - 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/
| |