[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:0.167 / U:1.412 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site