[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] down_norecurse(), down_interruptible_norecurse(), up_norecurse()
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Tim Waugh wrote:

> MUTEX_NORECURSE probably isn't for a mutex -- it's semaphores that don't
> want recursion. It would be nicer to have something like
> SEMAPHORE(initval). If I thought long enough about it, I'm fairly sure I
> could come up with a situation where you'd want to initialise a semaphore
> to >1.

Ok. I think the MUTEX word was to tell that you wanted a semaphore
initialized to 1 (as a mutex unlocked), but agreed, SEMAPHORE(x) looks a
better name for the norecursive semaphore initializer.

Andrea Arcangeli

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.038 / U:2.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site