Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:17:11 -0000 | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | [Patch RFC 01/37] semaphore: Add DEFINE_SEMAPHORE, semaphore_init, semaphore_init_locked |
| |
The full cleanup of init_MUTEX[_LOCKED] and DECLARE_MUTEX has not been done. Some of the users are real semaphores and we should name them as such instead of confusing everyone with "MUTEX".
Provide the infrastructure to get finally rid of init_MUTEX[_LOCKED] and DECLARE_MUTEX.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- include/linux/semaphore.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6-tip/include/linux/semaphore.h =================================================================== --- linux-2.6-tip.orig/include/linux/semaphore.h +++ linux-2.6-tip/include/linux/semaphore.h @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ struct semaphore { .wait_list = LIST_HEAD_INIT((name).wait_list), \ } +#define DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(name) \ + struct semaphore name = __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER(name, 1) + #define DECLARE_MUTEX(name) \ struct semaphore name = __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER(name, 1) @@ -36,6 +39,20 @@ static inline void sema_init(struct sema lockdep_init_map(&sem->lock.dep_map, "semaphore->lock", &__key, 0); } +static inline void semaphore_init(struct semanphore *sem) +{ + sema_init(sem, 1); +} + +/* + * semaphore_init_locked() is mostly a sign for a mutex which is + * abused as completion. + */ +static inline void __deprecated semaphore_init_locked(struct semanphore *sem) +{ + sema_init(sem, 0); +} + #define init_MUTEX(sem) sema_init(sem, 1) #define init_MUTEX_LOCKED(sem) sema_init(sem, 0)
| |