[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:40 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
    > Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > >
    > > You can do a full scripted rename of up/down to the mutex API and then
    > > fix up the 100 places used by semaphores manually.
    > Again, folks, this only works for current in-tree kernel code.
    > There are huge amounts of kernel code out-of-tree that still use
    > up/down as (or potentially as) counting semaphores.
    > Yes, some of that code is closed-source, but most of it is open-source
    > stuff in people's "queues", such as the network patch-o-matic queue
    > and other stuff. Lots of open-source out-of-tree drivers, too.
    > Re-using the existing up()/down() names for a new purpose is
    > a very very Bad Idea.


    > Removing up()/down() entirely is not quite so bad,
    > because at least then people will eventually notice the change.
    > Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option.

    Not at all.

    Doing a s/down/lock_mutex/ s/up/unlock_mutex/ - or whatever naming
    convention we want to use - all over the place for mutexes while keeping
    the up/down for counting semaphores is an one time issue.

    After the conversion every code breaks at compile time which tries to do

    So the out of tree drivers have a clear indication what to fix. This is
    also a one time issue.

    So where is the problem - except for fixing "huge" amounts of out of
    kernel code once ?


    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: 2005-12-15 00:53    [W:0.022 / U:10.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site