On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:35 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>It seems to me it would be far far saner to define something like
> >>
> >> sleep_lock(&foo)
> >> sleep_unlock(&foo)
> >> sleep_trylock(&foo)
> >
> > Which would be a _lot_ more work. It would involve about ten times as many
> > changes, I think, and thus be more prone to errors.
>
> "lots of work" has never been a valid reason for not doing a kernel
> change...
>
> In this case, introducing a new API means the changes can be made over time.
in this case, doing this change gradual I think is a mistake. We should
do all of the in-kernel code at least...
-
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]
