lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 16 Dec 2005 14:41:16 -0800 (PST)
FromLinus Torvalds <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> Therefor, if you want to handle that "init protection" scenario, do not
> use a mutex, because the owner can not be defined at compile -
> allocation time.

Sure it could. We certainly have "init_task", for example. It may or may 
not be the right thing to use, of course. Depends on what the situation 
is.

> You can still implement (chose a mechanism) a mutex on top - or in case
> of lack of priority inheritance or debugging with exactly the same -
> mechanism as a semaphore, but this does not change the semantical
> difference at all.

"Friends don't let friends use priority inheritance".

Just don't do it. If you really need it, your system is broken anyway.

		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: 2005-12-16 23:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2008