Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:06:42 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| |
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:57:40PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > This will BREAK a lot of out-of-tree stuff if merged.
Well, bad luck for them.
> The simplest way would be to NOT re-use the up()/down() symbols, > but rather to either keep them as-is (counting semaphores), > or delete them entirely (so that external code *knows* of the change).
That I agree with actually. Keeping the semaphore interface as-is would simplify in-kernel transition a lot aswell and make it easier for people to get the API read. And the mutex symbols could get far more sensible names like mutex_lock, mutex_unlock and mutex_trylock.. - 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/
| |