Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] mutex: Make more scalable by doing less atomicoperations

[Ingo Molnar]

* Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > That said, the MUTEX_SHOULD_XCHG_COUNT macro should die. Why shouldn't all 
> > architectures just consider negative counts to be locked? It doesn't matter 
> > that some might only ever see -1.
> 
> I think so too. However, I don't have the machines to test out other 
> architectures. The MUTEX_SHOULD_XCHG_COUNT is just a safety measure to make sure 
> that my code won't screw up the kernel in other architectures. Once it is 
> confirmed that a negative count other than -1 is fine for all the other 
> architectures, the macro can certainly go.

I'd suggest to just remove it in an additional patch, Cc:-ing 
linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The change is very likely to be fine, if not then it's 
easy to revert it.

Thanks,

	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/