|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 <email@example.com> 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.
Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds