From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mutex: add mutex_lock_timeout() Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:13:27 +0200 Message-ID: <48B471F7.1080907@linux.intel.com> References: <1219777186-4787-1-git-send-email-dwalker@mvista.com> <48B45A48.6080604@linux.intel.com> <1219780298.3797.24.camel@dhcp32.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:57793 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751435AbYHZVN0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:13:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1219780298.3797.24.camel@dhcp32.mvista.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Matthew Wilcox , Len Brown , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >> However what you can do is to ask Len again when he's back. Ultimately >> it is his decision and he might decide that he can deal with AML lockdep >> issues longer term. > > For instance these changes could go into linux-next until the 2.6.29 > merge window .. Len should be back by then, and we should have a much > better idea what kind of problems may exist, if any.. Sorry I'm not convinced that linux-next testing can resolve that. It doesn't really have enough hardware/tester coverage. Also linux-next is really only for stuff that is going to be merged, and from my current perspective it's not. >> Don't think it makes all that much sense to resubmit the completion >> patch though. It's unrelated to the other patches anyways (not sure >> why you mix them together) > > It's all related .. I don't think it is. You keep claiming that but it's just not true. You have not so far brought up a single argument why the semaphores should be changed to completions. -Andi