Re: [PATCH] De-macro spin_trylock_irq, spin_trylock_irqsave, write_trylock_irqsave

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>]

Hi Ingo,

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:

> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>
>> >> (but it would also be hugely invasive, with not much upside with 
>> >> tons of downside like years of migration fallout and having to 
>> >> rewrite hundreds of kernel hacking books ;-) )
>> >
>> > I want my money back for scheduler chapter from "Understanding the 
>> > Linux Kernel"!
>> 
>> I agree that this argument of Ingo's is not a very good one... ;)
>
> i see the smiley, but still - there's a huge difference between the 
> "pain" caused by a much better scheduler [ hey, did you expect me to say 
> anything else? ;-) ] and a rather arbitrary value->pointer parametering 
> change to a core API that is used _everywhere_.

I just meant the thing about the books.  What you said about the
invasive manner, the migration costs and the missing upside I fully
agree with.

	Hannes