From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751230AbWH2GIA (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:08:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751252AbWH2GIA (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:08:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:46754 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751237AbWH2GH7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:07:59 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent? Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:07:40 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Dong Feng , Paul Mackerras , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, David Howells References: <1156750249.3034.155.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44F395DE.10804@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <44F395DE.10804@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608290807.40963.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > and chuck out the "crappy" rwsem fallback implementation What is crappy with it? I went with it because there were some serious concerns about the complexity of the i386 rwsem code and so far nobody has complained about them being too slow. But yes rwsems could need some big cleanup. -Andi