Re: [PATCH] De-macro spin_trylock_irq, spin_trylock_irqsave, write_trylock_irqsave
From: Johannes Weiner
Date: Sun Aug 17 2008 - 08:31:10 EST
Hi Ingo,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> writes:
> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >> (but it would also be hugely invasive, with not much upside with
>> >> tons of downside like years of migration fallout and having to
>> >> rewrite hundreds of kernel hacking books ;-) )
>> >
>> > I want my money back for scheduler chapter from "Understanding the
>> > Linux Kernel"!
>>
>> I agree that this argument of Ingo's is not a very good one... ;)
>
> i see the smiley, but still - there's a huge difference between the
> "pain" caused by a much better scheduler [ hey, did you expect me to say
> anything else? ;-) ] and a rather arbitrary value->pointer parametering
> change to a core API that is used _everywhere_.
I just meant the thing about the books. What you said about the
invasive manner, the migration costs and the missing upside I fully
agree with.
Hannes
--
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/