Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations

Paul Mackerras
2005-04-29T01:26:56Z

Trond Myklebust writes:

> It started from a desire to extend the existing implementations to
> support new features such as asynchronous notification. Currently that
> sort of thing is impossible unless your developer-super-powers include
> the ability to herd 24 different subsystem maintainers into working
> together on a solution.

Well, maybe the slow paths could be unified somewhat, and then these
extra features could be added in the slow paths. I would support
that. I certainly don't support replacing the current optimized
fast-path implementations with a lowest-common-denominator thing like
Ben was proposing.

Paul.