[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
David Howells wrote:
> Alan Cox <> wrote:

>>It seems to me it would be far far saner to define something like
>> sleep_lock(&foo)
>> sleep_unlock(&foo)
>> sleep_trylock(&foo)
> Which would be a _lot_ more work. It would involve about ten times as many
> changes, I think, and thus be more prone to errors.

"lots of work" has never been a valid reason for not doing a kernel

In this case, introducing a new API means the changes can be made over time.

As time goes on you can convert more and more code to the mutex/sleep
lock and any tricky code just stays with the older API until someone who
understands it can vet it.

As Alan mentioned, the standard counting semaphore API is up/down.
Making those refer to a sleeping mutex violates the principle of least


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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-13 15:39    [W:0.184 / U:8.896 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site