On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would like some more flexible way of dealing with locks in general. The
> code for the MUTEXes seems to lock us into a specific way of realizing
> locks again.
Yes, and that's what I'm attempting to prevent.
The low-level locking mechanism for mutexes needs to have the weakest
(and simplest) semantics possible without compromising the generic code
from doing its job. Setting on a strict pure atomic decrement (the
strictest semantic) or an atomic swap (better but still a tiny bit
stricter than necessary) is not required for proper mutex support with
the current core code.
Nicolas
-
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]
