From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932172AbVLQHgN (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:36:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932154AbVLQHgN (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:36:13 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:62596 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932146AbVLQHgM (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:36:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:35:53 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Steven Rostedt cc: David Howells , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes In-Reply-To: <1134791914.13138.167.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <200512162313.jBGND7g4019623@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <1134791914.13138.167.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > What's the reason not to just use DECLARE_SEM and DECLARE_SEM_LOCKED? I still don't see the reason for _any_ of these changes. There's one big reason to stay with what we have: it's always better to not make changes unnecessarily. That's a BIG reason. It's the _changes_ that need to have strong arguments for them as actually buying us something. Linus