Re: [patch 00/15] Generic Mutex Subsystem

[Ingo Molnar]

* Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> However, the argument _against_ making things generic is that they 
> become less optimised for specific architectures.  I'm still not 
> convinced that the genirq stuff is as optimal for ARM as the existing 
> code is, so I've little motivation to move to the genirq stuff. 
> (Though I will try to make things easier for those who would like to.)

i'm quite convinced that the final phase of the genirq conversion will 
work out fine: because it mostly meant the conceptual adoption of your 
ARM IRQ layer (the irqchips approach), with compatibility mechanisms for 
all the other arches, with some minor SMP improvements ontop of it. So 
i'd be surprised if you found _that_ one inadequate :-) If there's any 
detail that ARM doesnt need, i'm sure we can find a non-runtime solution 
for it. But i think i digress.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/