Re: [patch 04/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem, add-atomic-call-func-x86_64.patch

[Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Quite frankly, what has disgusted me about this mutex discussion is the 
> totally specious arguments for the new mutexes that just rubs me entirely 
> the wrong way.
>
[...]
>
> In other words: if people didn't mix up issues that had nothing to do with 
> this into it, I'd be happier. I've already said that a mutex that does 
> _not_ replace semaphore (and doesn't mess with naming) is acceptable. 

Oh if it is so we are in _violent_ agreement then.  I don't dispute that 
at all and I pretty agree with a separate namespace for mutexes.  
Actually I think no one contested that either.

Current semaphores can be migrated to mutexes individually when that 
makes sense to do so, separately.

With regards to my _implementation_ concerns about the proposed mutex 
patches I guess I can discuss them with Ingo (and an actual patch is 
coming to fix them).


Nicolas
-
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/