From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <439EE1E9.9050203@nortel.com> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:59:53 -0600 From: "Christopher Friesen" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation References: <1134479118.11732.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3874.1134480759@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <439EDC3D.5040808@nortel.com> <1134485062.9814.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <1134485062.9814.0.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: David Howells , Alan Cox , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:35 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote: >>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... This means verifying all the users before patch submission, which may be problematic. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if you create a new API you have the option of converting the obvious cases first, which should cover the majority of users. Anywhere the behaviour is non-obvious can be left using the old API, and the out-of-tree users will continue to work correctly. Chris