Re: [patch 2/5] mutex subsystem: add architecture specific mutex primitives

Can you now simply remove the meddling with the atomic.h headers?

i386 can directly implement arch_mutex_fast_lock instead of
atomic_dec_call_if_negative.

Not sure what the policy is with naming, but I prefer mutex_arch_xxx
or __mutex_xxx for the arch specific names.

I think ARMv6 has a decent atomic_cmpxchg implementation but does
not define __HAVE_ARCH_CMPXCHG. It might be useful to try to use this
for ARMv6 SMP for a slightly better trylock.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com-

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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch 2/5] mutex subsystem: add architecture specific mutex primitives
  - From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

References:
- [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- [patch 3/3] mutex subsystem: move the core to the new atomic helpers
  - From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 3/3] mutex subsystem: move the core to the new atomic helpers
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- [patch 2/5] mutex subsystem: add architecture specific mutex primitives
  - From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Un aligned addresses
Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/8] mutex subsystem, ANNOUNCE
Previous by thread: [patch 2/5] mutex subsystem: add architecture specific mutex primitives
Next by thread: Re: [patch 2/5] mutex subsystem: add architecture specific mutex primitives
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]