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

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 16:57 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 23:45 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> 
> >  (1) Provides a simple xchg() based semaphore as a default for all
> >      architectures that don't wish to override it and provide their own.
> > 
> >      Overriding is possible by setting CONFIG_ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_MUTEX and
> >      supplying asm/mutex.h
> > 
> >      Partial overriding is possible by #defining mutex_grab(), mutex_release()
> >      and is_mutex_locked() to perform the appropriate optimised functions.
> 
> Your code is really similar to the RT mutex, which does everything that
> your mutex does at least ? Assuming you've reviewed the RT mutex, why
> would we want to use yours over it?

Maybe this would be the better !PREEMPT_RT version.  But the true mutex
that Ingo is making would be used for the PREEMPT_RT side.

This code at least brings down the over head of semaphores where they
are not really needed.  Looking at the code slightly (I must admit, I
spent maybe 30 seconds looking at it), it does seem a little similar to
Ingo's.  Could just be coincidence, since the methods are pretty much
what multiple people would come up with.  But you both work for RedHat,
hmm.

-- Steve


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