[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808031031380.3668@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce down_try() so we can move away from
down_trylock()
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> I love your suggestion tho. Oh wait, you didn't make one...
Ok, Rusty, I'm not bothering with this thread any more.
I gave a suggestion.
You didn't like it. Go away.
> And so my patch series replaces all 21 of them. It's a trivial replace,
> unlike sem -> mutex.
Your series doesn't "replace" anything.
It renames things with no good reason. The end result is _worse_. I told
you why. You don't like it.
> > Guys, some quality control and critical thinking, please.
>
> Good idea. If we'd done that we wouldn't have the down_trylock() brain
> damage.
You don't see the difference between "new crap" and "legacy crap that
people have historical reasons for and that people have learnt to live
with"?
Anyway, I NAK'ed your patches. Deal with it.
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