Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

[sorry, I missed some emails when I was out of action a while back. Catching up...]

Andi Kleen wrote:

and chuck out the "crappy" rwsem fallback implementation

What is crappy with it?

I just mean that it is supposedly the second class implementation. Just
seems wrong when powerpc has implemented the "better" version in a completely
generic way (patch to follow).

--
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/

---

• References:
  • Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: "Dong Feng" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: OT: calling kernel syscall manually
• Next by Date: Re: RT, timers and CLOCK_REALTIME_HR
• Previous by thread: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
• Next by thread: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?
• 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]