Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [DOC PATCH] Remove mention of semaphores from kernel-locking | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:15:30 +1000 |
| |
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 00:52:30 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Since the consensus seems to be to eliminate semaphores where possible, > we shouldn't be educating people about how to use them as locks.
Agreed.
> Use > mutexes instead. Semaphores should be described in a separate document > if we end up keeping them. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com> > > (I'll put this patch in the semaphore git tree tomorrow unless I hear > complaints.) > > diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl > b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl index 435413c..e1f4655 100644 > --- a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl > +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl > @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ > <title>Three Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks, Mutexes and > Semaphores</title> > > <para> > - There are three main types of kernel locks. The fundamental type > + There are two main types of kernel locks. The fundamental type > is the spinlock > (<filename class="headerfile">include/asm/spinlock.h</filename>), > which is a very simple single-holder lock: if you can't get the
Fix title, too?
Thanks for the other fixes too; this document needs some love,
Acked, Rusty.
| |