[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080415170556.GA16417@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:05:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
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
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> 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@...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