From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@infradead.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@trained-monkey.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] mutex subsystem, -V5
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:34:46 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512221328040.26663@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512221003540.7992@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would like some more flexible way of dealing with locks in general. The
> code for the MUTEXes seems to lock us into a specific way of realizing
> locks again.
Yes, and that's what I'm attempting to prevent.
The low-level locking mechanism for mutexes needs to have the weakest
(and simplest) semantics possible without compromising the generic code
from doing its job. Setting on a strict pure atomic decrement (the
strictest semantic) or an atomic swap (better but still a tiny bit
stricter than necessary) is not required for proper mutex support with
the current core code.
Nicolas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-22 18:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-22 15:37 Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 16:36 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 17:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-12-22 18:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-12-22 18:34 ` Nicolas Pitre [this message]
2005-12-22 21:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 21:52 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 21:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-12-22 22:04 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-12-22 23:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 17:14 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0512221328040.26663@localhost.localdomain \
--to=nico@cam.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arjanv@infradead.org \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=clameter@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jes@trained-monkey.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®