lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [12]   [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 Mon, 2005-12-12 at 21:57 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
    > > (5) Redirects the following to apply to the new mutexes rather than the
    > > traditional semaphores:
    > >
    > > down()
    > > down_trylock()
    > > down_interruptible()
    > > up()
    >
    > This will BREAK a lot of out-of-tree stuff if merged.
    >
    > So please figure out some way to hang a HUGE banner out there
    > so that the external codebases know they need updating.
    >
    > The simplest way would be to NOT re-use the up()/down() symbols,
    > but rather to either keep them as-is (counting semaphores),
    > or delete them entirely (so that external code *knows* of the change).

    Actually, up and down don't imply mutex at all. So maybe it would be
    better to keep up and down as normal semaphores, rename what you want to
    mutex_lock / mutex_unlock which makes it obvious what it is, and then
    you can go through and find all the semaphores that are being used as
    mutexes (or is that mutices?) and make the change more incrementally.

    -- 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-13 04:20    [W:0.019 / U:0.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site