From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932134AbYDORGx (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:06:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754813AbYDORGp (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:06:45 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:50664 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755407AbYDORGo (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:06:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:05:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , Bart Van Assche , Roland Dreier , Matthew Wilcox , Ingo Oeser , Daniel Walker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores Message-ID: <20080415170556.GA16417@elte.hu> References: <87d4osuy6r.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <1208195673.7164.2.camel@twins> <4803AD91.5020001@firstfloor.org> <1208242017.7053.4.camel@lappy> <1208249088.7124.7.camel@twins> <4804D779.6070907@firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Torvalds wrote: > Why have "generic semaphores" at all, if we want to get rid of them? i very much agree with the "get rid of semaphores" argument - the reason why i initially supported the "move to generic semaphores" step was because i saw it basically as the precursor to full removal: it is the removal of semaphores from all architectures - with a small generic compatibility wrapper to handle the remaining few uses of semaphores. i got thoroughly surprised by the "increase the scope of semaphores" angle to the patchset though, and in hindsight i'd rather see neither of those generalizations and see semaphores die a slow but sure natural death than to see their prolongation :-/ perhaps the 'remove all semaphores from all architectures' privilege should be a final step kept for the lucky guy who manages to get rid of the last remaining semaphore use in the kernel? :) Ingo