Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Why have "generic semaphores" at all, if we want to get rid of them?

i very much agree with the "get rid of semaphores" argument - the reason 
why i initially supported the "move to generic semaphores" step was 
because i saw it basically as the precursor to full removal: it is the 
removal of semaphores from all architectures - with a small generic 
compatibility wrapper to handle the remaining few uses of semaphores.

i got thoroughly surprised by the "increase the scope of semaphores" 
angle to the patchset though, and in hindsight i'd rather see neither of 
those generalizations and see semaphores die a slow but sure natural 
death than to see their prolongation :-/

perhaps the 'remove all semaphores from all architectures' privilege 
should be a final step kept for the lucky guy who manages to get rid of 
the last remaining semaphore use in the kernel? :)

	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/