Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations

[Paul Mackerras]

Trond Myklebust writes:

> It started from a desire to extend the existing implementations to
> support new features such as asynchronous notification. Currently that
> sort of thing is impossible unless your developer-super-powers include
> the ability to herd 24 different subsystem maintainers into working
> together on a solution.

Well, maybe the slow paths could be unified somewhat, and then these
extra features could be added in the slow paths.  I would support
that.  I certainly don't support replacing the current optimized
fast-path implementations with a lowest-common-denominator thing like
Ben was proposing.

Paul.
-
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/