lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation


On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Well, in case of a semaphore it is a semantically correct use case. In
> case of of a mutex it is not.

I disagree.

Think of "initialization" as a user. The system starts out initializing
stuff, and as such the mutex should start out being held. It's that
simple. It _is_ mutual exclusion, with one user being the early bootup
state.

Linus
-
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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.166 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site