On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 07:05:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

Hm.  I thought you initially supported it because it deleted so much
code.  I don't want to go and add down_killable() to each architecture
again, and you were pretty enthusiastic about adding down_killable().

quoted text
> 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 :-/

I'm fully in favour of reducing the number of semaphore users, and
eventually eliminating them.  Arjan and I discussed a way to do that
just now ... I'll write some code, see how it looks.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/