Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So... Would you then object to an implementation of a mutex appearing in the
> > tree which semaphores that are being used as strict mutexes can be migrated
> > over to as the opportunity arises?
>
> That would be sane.
>
But not very.
Look at it from the POV of major architectures: there's no way the new
mutex code will be faster than down() and up(), so we're adding a bunch of
new tricky locking code which bloats the kernel and has to be understood
and debugged for no gain.
And I don't buy the debuggability argument really. It'd be pretty simple
to add debug code to the existing semaphore code to trap non-mutex usages.
Then go through the few valid non-mutex users and do:
#if debug
sem->this_is_not_a_mutex = 1;
#endif
