Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:57:38 -0500 | From | Mark Lord <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| |
Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:40 -0500, Mark Lord wrote: ... >>Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option. > ... >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 ?
Pointless API breakage. The same functions continue to exist, the old names CANNOT be reused for some (longish) time, so there's no point in renaming them. It just breaks an API for no good reason whatsoever.
Cheers - 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/
| |