From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20051213094053.33284360.pj@sgi.com> References: <20051213094053.33284360.pj@sgi.com> <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <20051213090219.GA27857@infradead.org> <20051213093949.GC26097@elte.hu> <20051213100015.GA32194@elte.hu> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:34:24 +0000 Message-ID: <6281.1134498864@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: dhowells@redhat.com To: Paul Jackson Cc: Ingo Molnar , hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Paul Jackson wrote: > It is usually too easy to produce a nearly correct script, and too > difficult to produce an exactly right one, for all but serious sed or > perl regex hackers. I'd be especially impressed if you can get it to also analyse the context in which the semaphore is used and determine whether or not it should be a counting semaphore, a mutex or a completion. You can probably do this sort of thing with Perl regexes... they seem to be terrifically[*] powerful. [*] and I mean that in the proper sense:-) David