Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:57:47 +0100 |
| |
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.
Ack.
> 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 up/down(mutex_type).
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 ?
tglx
- 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/
| |