[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200808041328.45773.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:28:45 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Monday 04 August 2008 03:35:41 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Anyway, I NAK'ed your patches. Deal with it.
>
> Btw, "dealing with it" can just be "don't bother".
Yes, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.
Someone sent me a patch documenting the illogic of down_trylock(). I decided
to try to fix it rather than just bitch and moan.
Kernel coding involves occasionally getting fed a Linus-special shit sandwich
rant. I've long given up expecting a polite "No; please just replace them
all with mutexes" one-liner. I might have actually been shocked into doing
it.
Consider the patches forgotten,
Rusty.
--
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