Re: [patch 00/10] mutex subsystem, -V5

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > Changes since -V4:
> > 
> > - removed __ARCH_WANT_XCHG_BASED_ATOMICS and implemented
> >   CONFIG_MUTEX_XCHG_ALGORITHM instead, based on comments from
> >   Christoph Hellwig.
> > 
> > - updated ARM to use CONFIG_MUTEX_XCHG_ALGORITHM.
> 
> This is still not what I'd like to see, per my previous comments.
> 
> Do you have any strong reason for pursuing that route instead of going 
> with my suggested approach?

I'd just prefer a 

	<asm-generic/mutex-xchg-algo.h>

and then any architecture can do whatever they damn well want, and 
anybody who doesn't want to, can just include that header file.

No #ifdef's, no config options, no "generic fallback". Just 
unconditionally do the sane thing.

I'm with whoever HATES those stupid __ARCH_xxx #defines. It's a sign of 
bad design. Either it's a generic algorithm (and it can be in 
<asm-generic> or it's not). In no case should we ever have __ARCH_HAS_xxx 
(and yes, that includes cases where we _currently_ use __ARCH_HAS_xxx).

		Linus
-
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/