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 Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    > > 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.

    We are not talking about priority inheritance and its usefulness at all.

    Fact is that you can implement two semanticaly different concurrency
    controls with or on top of the same mechanism under given circumstances
    (no debugging, no ...). But the reverse attempt is wrong by defintion.


    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: 2005-12-17 00:25    [W:0.051 / U:31.384 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site