* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ingo, can't you get rt.c to be more confusing. I mean it is too > simple. We need to add a few more underscores here and there :-) > Seriously, that rt.c is mind boggling. It was nice before, now it is > just screaming for a cleanup (come now, do we really need the four > underscores?). Same with latency.c.
i agree that it's ugly, but some of that ugliness is to achieve the 7-instructions fail-through codepath for the common acquire (and release) codepath: c03a5320 <__down_mutex>: c03a5320: 89 c1 mov %eax,%ecx c03a5322: 8b 15 08 76 3a c0 mov 0xc03a7608,%edx c03a5328: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax c03a532a: 0f b1 51 14 cmpxchg %edx,0x14(%ecx) c03a532e: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax c03a5330: 75 01 jne c03a5333 <__down_mutex+0x13> c03a5332: c3 ret that's how much it takes to acquire an RT lock, and i worked hard to get there. As long as the fastpath is kept this tight, feel free to do cleanups. But i really want to avoid having to write mutex_down/up in assembly for 24 architectures ... Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/