On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:00:58PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> 
> we already have kernel_lock, which is exactly to emulate the existing
> synchronization semantics.
> why to bother to waste time to introduce and stabilize
> another stop-gap hack rather than doing real smp work?

But kernel_lock gives you _one_ level of mutual exclusion.  Unless I
misunderstand -- which is entirely possible -- what Jonathan is proposing
would give multiple levels.

-- 
 Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
 abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."		- Noam Chomsky