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

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:35 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >>It seems to me it would be far far saner to define something like
> >>
> >>	sleep_lock(&foo)
> >>	sleep_unlock(&foo)
> >>	sleep_trylock(&foo)
> > 
> > Which would be a _lot_ more work. It would involve about ten times as many
> > changes, I think, and thus be more prone to errors.
> 
> "lots of work" has never been a valid reason for not doing a kernel 
> change...
> 
> In this case, introducing a new API means the changes can be made over time.

in this case, doing this change gradual I think is a mistake. We should
do all of the in-kernel code at least... 

-
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/