Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:37:00 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| |
* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > it's not _that_ bad, if done overnight. It does not touch any of the > > down/up APIs. Touching those would create a monster patch and monster > > impact. > > One argument for a full rename (and abandoning the old "struct > semaphore" name completely) would be that it would offer a clean break > for out tree code, no silent breakage.
btw., in the -rt tree we rarely had 'silent breakage' - roughly 80% of the cases were caught build-time: we eliminated DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED, which is a clear sign for non-mutex semaphore usage. Another 19% was caught by runtime checks: 'does owner unlock the mutex'. The remaining 1% was breakage that was not found quickly.
Ingo - 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/
| |