Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:28:52 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 11:21 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David Howells wrote: > > > > > > FROM TO > > > ============================== ========================= > > > DECLARE_MUTEX DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX > > > DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED > > > Proper counting semaphore DECLARE_SEM > > > > That sounds fine. > > They should be renamed to DEFINE_* while we're there. A "declaration" is > "this thing is defined somewhere else". A "definition" is "this thing is > defined here".
Why have the "MUTEX" part in there? Shouldn't that just be DECLARE_SEM (oops, I mean DEFINE_SEM). Especially that MUTEX_LOCKED! What is that? How does a MUTEX start off as locked. It can't, since a mutex must always have an owner (which, by the way, helped us in the -rt patch to find our "compat_semaphores"). So who's the owner of a DEFINE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED?
-- 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/
| |