User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

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
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

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.


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds