Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:56:02 -0800 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| |
> But what to do about DECLARE_MUTEX? :-/
A phased change of just the renames: DECLARE_MUTEX ==> DECLARE_SEM init_MUTEX ==> init_SEM DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED ==> DECLARE_SEM_LOCKED init_MUTEX_LOCKED ==> init_SEM_LOCKED
seems doable. A scripted replacement, so long as it specifies whole word replacement only, seems to be a very robust replacement for these four symbols, unlike "up"/"down", which are scary at best to consider wholesale replacement.
Add the new *_SEM in one release as aliases for the current *_MUTEX, do the wholesale replacement of the above names, leaving the old as aliases in a second release, remove the old *_MUTEX aliases in a third release, and them restore them as new 'real mutex' methods in a fourth release. Be sure that the new *_MUTEX versions will generate a compile error if handed the old counting semaphore type.
I'm a stickler for names ... at least until Linus/Andrew show me the foolishness of my ways, I could find such a change appealing.
Of course, they're the ones with all the sweat equity on the line, not me.
... I'd better duck and get back to bug fixing, before I get hit ...
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
| |