Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:06:18 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion. > > > > Well, then let us use a completion and not some semantically wrong > > workaround > > It is _not_ wrong to have a semaphore start out in locked state. > > For example, it makes perfect sense if the data structures that the > semaphore needs need initialization. The way you _should_ handle that is > to make the semaphore come up as locked, and the data structures in some > "don't matter" state, and then the thing that initializes stuff can do so > properly and then release the semaphore. > > Yes, in some cases such a locked semaphore is only used once, and ends up > being a "completion", but that doesn't invalidate the fact that this is > a perfectly fine way to handle a real issue.
Well, in case of a semaphore it is a semantically correct use case. In case of of a mutex it is not.
Gerd was talking about a mutex. The fact that a mutex is implemented on top (or on actually the same) mechanism as a semaphore - for what ever reason - does not change the semantical difference between semaphores and mutexes.
tglx
- 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/
| |