[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
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:57:40PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> This will BREAK a lot of out-of-tree stuff if merged.

Well, bad luck for them.

> 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).

That I agree with actually. Keeping the semaphore interface as-is
would simplify in-kernel transition a lot aswell and make it easier for
people to get the API read. And the mutex symbols could get far more sensible
names like mutex_lock, mutex_unlock and mutex_trylock..
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 10:09    [W:0.309 / U:2.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site