lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
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
> > DEFINE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED?
>
> No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion.

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

tglx


-
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: 2005-12-16 22:36    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans