On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 12:12:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And don't get me wrong: if it's easier to just ignore the performance bug,
> and introduce a new "struct mutex" that just doesn't have it, I'm all for
> it. However, if so, I do NOT want to do the unnecessary renaming. "struct
> semaphore" should stay as "struct semaphore", and we should not affect old
> code in the _least_.
>
> Then code can switch to "struct mutex" if people want to. And if one
> reason for it ends up being that the code avoids a performance bug in the
> process, all the better ;)
>
> IOW, I really think this should be a series of small patches that don't
> touch old users of "struct semaphore" at all. None of this "semaphore" to
> "arch_semaphore" stuff, and the new "struct mutex" would not re-use _any_
> of the names that the old "struct semaphore" uses.
That's exactly what Ingo's series does if you ignore the two odd patches ;-)
-
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]
