Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:44:13AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > You keep saying 10 times "so please enhance semaphores to do this".
> 
> Well I think diligence requires that we be able to demonstrate why it's not
> possible.
> 
> It's plain dumb for us to justify a fancy-pants new system based on
> features which we could have added to the old one, no?

But why should we add features to the semaphores.  There's very little
users of those real semaphore semantics, and they could do with a generic,
all-C implementation because they are not important fast-pathes.  OTOH
we have lots of places needing plain mutex semantics, that are important
fastpathes.  Let's optimize for the common case instead of the corner
case.

-
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/