From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
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 16:52:54 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512221647490.26663@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051222213902.GA32433@elte.hu>
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i definitely do not say that _everything_ should be generalized. That
> would be micromanaging things. But i definitely think there's an
> unhealthy amount of _under_ generalization in current Linux
> architectures, and i dont want the mutex subsystem to fall into that
> trap.
BTW, I strongly believe the semaphore implementation could go with the
same model the mutex model I hope is heading for.
I.e., the only thing each architecture really have to implement is
__sem_fast_down and __sem_fast _up, and incidentally they would have the
exact same definition as your atomic_*_call_if_* functions (while a bit
too restrictive for mutex semantics, they really are the minimum
required for semaphores). Then all the current per architecture
semaphore code could be consolidated.
Nicolas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-22 21:52 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
2005-12-22 21:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 21:52 ` Nicolas Pitre [this message]
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.4.64.0512221647490.26663@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®