From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750731AbVLOOmh (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:42:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750735AbVLOOmU (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:42:20 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.58]:51123 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750746AbVLOOmH (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:42:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation From: Steven Rostedt To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthew@wil.cx, arjan@infradead.org, torvalds@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, pj@sgi.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, Mark Lord In-Reply-To: <20051214155432.320f2950.akpm@osdl.org> References: <1134559121.25663.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <13820.1134558138@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20051213143147.d2a57fb3.pj@sgi.com> <20051213094053.33284360.pj@sgi.com> <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <20051213090219.GA27857@infradead.org> <20051213093949.GC26097@elte.hu> <20051213100015.GA32194@elte.hu> <6281.1134498864@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <14242.1134558772@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <16315.1134563707@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <1134568731.4275.4.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <43A0AD54.6050109@rtr.ca> <20051214155432.320f2950.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:41:30 -0500 Message-Id: <1134657690.13138.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:54 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Mark Lord wrote: > > > > Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option. > > > > Absolutely. > > I must say that my interest in this stuff is down in > needs-an-electron-microscope-to-locate territory. down() and up() work > just fine and they're small, efficient, well-debugged and well-understood. > We need a damn good reason for taking on tree-wide churn or incompatible > renames or addition of risk. What's the damn good reason here? > **** > Please. Go fix some bugs. We're not short of them. **** I'd give that the quote of the day! -- Steve