lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 13 Dec 2005 14:45:08 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
* David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> 
> > >      	init_MUTEX_LOCKED()
> > > 	DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED()
> > 
> > please kill these two in the simple mutex implementation - they are a 
> > sign of mutexes used as completions.
> 
> That can be done later. It's not necessary to do it in this particular 
> patch set.

i disagree - it's necessary that we dont build complexities into the 
'simple' mutex type, or the whole game starts again. I.e. the 'owner 
unlocks the mutex' rule must be enforced - which makes 
DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED() meaningless.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-13 14:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2008