Re: [patch 00/10] mutex subsystem, -V5

[Nicolas Pitre]

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
-
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/