Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

Arjan van de Ven
2005-12-13T14:44:22Z

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:35 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >>It seems to me it would be far far saner to define something like
> >>
> >> sleep_lock(&foo)
> >> sleep_unlock(&foo)
> >> sleep_trylock(&foo)
> >
> > Which would be a _lot_ more work. It would involve about ten times as many
> > changes, I think, and thus be more prone to errors.
>
> "lots of work" has never been a valid reason for not doing a kernel
> change...
>
> In this case, introducing a new API means the changes can be made over time.

in this case, doing this change gradual I think is a mistake. We should
do all of the in-kernel code at least...