lkml.org 
[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
    From
    Date
    On Maw, 2005-12-13 at 15:39 +0000, David Howells wrote:
    > (3) Some people want mutexes to be:
    >
    > (a) only releasable in the same context as they were taken
    >
    > (b) not accessible in interrupt context, or that (a) applies here also
    >
    > (c) not initialisable to the locked state
    >
    > But this means that the current usages all have to be carefully audited,
    > and sometimes that unobvious.

    Only if you insist on replacing them immediately. If you submit a
    *small* patch which just adds the new mutexes then a series of small
    patches can gradually convert code where mutexes are better. People will
    naturally hit the hot and critical points first meaning that in a short
    time the users of semaphores will be those who need it, and those who
    are not critical to performance.

    There is a problemn with init_MUTEX*/DECLARE_MUTEX naming being used for
    semaphore struct init and I don't see a nice way to fix that either. I'd
    rather see people just have to fix those as compiler errors (or a perl
    -e regexp run to make them all init_SEM/DECLARE_SEM before any other
    changes are made).


    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-14 11:26    [W:4.161 / U:0.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site