Re: Surprise! (Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>]

On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jun Sun wrote:

> Agree.  Having dual semantics for the return value is bad.
> 
> I was actually suggesting to have a new subcall in sysmips (e.g.,
> MIPS_NEW_ATOMIC_SET) and still working within the sysmips() call framework.
> 
> Is there any concern as for adding a new syscall?

 I'd prefer to avoid sysmips() (as a whole, not only the MIPS_ATOMIC_SET
subcall) for the reasons I've written previously.  There is really no
point in saving five bytes in the syscall tables just to make use of the
existing mess. 

 Note that adding MIPS_NEW_ATOMIC_SET doesn't make sysmips() more
consistent at all. 

-- 
+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+        e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available        +