Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 12:18 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Look at it from the POV of major architectures: there's no way the new
> mutex code will be faster than down() and up(), so we're adding a bunch of
> new tricky locking code which bloats the kernel and has to be understood
> and debugged for no gain.

Look at it from the semantical POV first, which is the most important
one.

semaphores are semantically different from mutexes, so they require
different APIs.

When you have semantically different APIs, you can still implement them
for whatever (e.g. peformance) reason on top of the same mechanism, but
you can not make this work the other way round.

	tglx
	


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/