Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:58:34 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 23:13 +0000, David Howells wrote: > The attached patch introduces a simple mutex implementation as an alternative > to the usual semaphore implementation where simple mutex functionality is all > that is required. > > This is useful in two ways: > > (1) A number of archs only provide very simple atomic instructions (such as > XCHG on i386, TAS on M68K, SWAP on FRV) which aren't sufficient to > implement full semaphore support directly. Instead spinlocks must be > employed to implement fuller functionality. > > (2) This makes it more obvious that a mutex is a mutex and restricts the > capabilites to make it more easier to debug. > > This patch set does the following: > > (1) Renames DECLARE_MUTEX and DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED to be DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX and > DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED for counting semaphores. >
Could we really get rid of that "MUTEX" part. A counting semaphore is _not_ a mutex, although a mutex _is_ a counting semaphore. As is a Jack Russell is a dog, but a dog is not a Jack Russell.
What's the reason not to just use DECLARE_SEM and DECLARE_SEM_LOCKED?
-- Steve
- 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/
| |