> OK, let's look at actual code please. Do you have anything against this > and the following patches? > > This patch adds fast path mutex primitives for all architectures. It > replaces your atomic_*_call_if_* patches that didn't seem to please > everybody, mutex usage notwithstanding. Thanks Nico, this is exactly what I wanted to see. One question about the naming of the arch helpers, do we really need the fastpath in there? Or just __mutex_* ? - 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/
- References:
- [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Russell King <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
- [patch 1/2] mutex subsystem: basic per arch fast path primitives
- From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>
- [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 00/10] mutex subsystem, -V5
- Next by Date: 4k stacks
- Previous by thread: [patch 1/2] mutex subsystem: basic per arch fast path primitives
- Next by thread: [patch 2/2] mutex subsystem: use the per architecture fast path lock_unlock defines
- Index(es):
 |