[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804150952300.2879@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > - probably add support for completions to do counting
>
> But that's just a semaphore, isn't it?
Exactly. But the point here is:
- nobody should use semaphores anyway (use mutexes)
- making *more* code use semaphores is wrong
- completions have a different _mental_ model
IOW, this is not about implementation issues. It's about how you think
about the operations.
We should _not_ implement completions as semaphores, simply because we
want to get *rid* of semaphores some day.
So rather than this long and involved patch series that first makes
semaphores generic, and then makes them be used as completions, I'd much
rather just skip this whole pointless exercise entirely.
Why have "generic semaphores" at all, if we want to get rid of them?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists