[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-13 10:09    [W:0.023 / U:15.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site