[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 21:32 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
    > > Why have the "MUTEX" part in there? Shouldn't that just be DECLARE_SEM
    > > (oops, I mean DEFINE_SEM). Especially that MUTEX_LOCKED! What is that?
    > > How does a MUTEX start off as locked. It can't, since a mutex must
    > > always have an owner (which, by the way, helped us in the -rt patch to
    > > find our "compat_semaphores"). So who's the owner of a
    > No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion.

    Well, then let us use a completion and not some semantically wrong


    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: 2005-12-16 22:36    [W:0.021 / U:136.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site