Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
[Posted December 20, 2005 by corbet]
| From: |
| Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org> |
| To: |
| Mark Lord <lkml-AT-rtr.ca> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| Date: |
| Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:54:32 -0800 |
| Cc: |
| tglx-AT-linutronix.de, dhowells-AT-redhat.com, alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
pj-AT-sgi.com, mingo-AT-elte.hu, hch-AT-infradead.org, torvalds-AT-osdl.org,
arjan-AT-infradead.org, matthew-AT-wil.cx, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch-AT-vger.kernel.org |
Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca> wrote:
>
> Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option.
>
Absolutely.
I must say that my interest in this stuff is down in
needs-an-electron-microscope-to-locate territory. down() and up() work
just fine and they're small, efficient, well-debugged and well-understood.
We need a damn good reason for taking on tree-wide churn or incompatible
renames or addition of risk. What's the damn good reason here?
Please. Go fix some bugs. We're not short of them.
