On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Changes since -V4:
> >
> > - removed __ARCH_WANT_XCHG_BASED_ATOMICS and implemented
> > CONFIG_MUTEX_XCHG_ALGORITHM instead, based on comments from
> > Christoph Hellwig.
> >
> > - updated ARM to use CONFIG_MUTEX_XCHG_ALGORITHM.
>
> This is still not what I'd like to see, per my previous comments.
>
> Do you have any strong reason for pursuing that route instead of going
> with my suggested approach?
I'd just prefer a
<asm-generic/mutex-xchg-algo.h>
and then any architecture can do whatever they damn well want, and
anybody who doesn't want to, can just include that header file.
No #ifdef's, no config options, no "generic fallback". Just
unconditionally do the sane thing.
I'm with whoever HATES those stupid __ARCH_xxx #defines. It's a sign of
bad design. Either it's a generic algorithm (and it can be in
<asm-generic> or it's not). In no case should we ever have __ARCH_HAS_xxx
(and yes, that includes cases where we _currently_ use __ARCH_HAS_xxx).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
