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

[Nicolas Pitre]

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
-
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/