Re: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> What's the reason not to just use DECLARE_SEM and DECLARE_SEM_LOCKED?

I still don't see the reason for _any_ of these changes.

There's one big reason to stay with what we have: it's always better to 
not make changes unnecessarily. That's a BIG reason. It's the _changes_ 
that need to have strong arguments for them as actually buying us 
something.

			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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/12]: MUTEX: Introduce mutex implementation
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]