![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
David Howells wrote: > Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >>It seems to me it would be far far saner to define something like >> >> sleep_lock(&foo) >> sleep_unlock(&foo) >> sleep_trylock(&foo) > > Which would be a _lot_ more work. It would involve about ten times as many > changes, I think, and thus be more prone to errors. "lots of work" has never been a valid reason for not doing a kernel change... In this case, introducing a new API means the changes can be made over time. As time goes on you can convert more and more code to the mutex/sleep lock and any tricky code just stays with the older API until someone who understands it can vet it. As Alan mentioned, the standard counting semaphore API is up/down. Making those refer to a sleeping mutex violates the principle of least surprise. Chris - 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 15:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||