Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:10:05 +0000 |
| |
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/
| |