lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > >
    > > Well, in case of a semaphore it is a semantically correct use case. In
    > > case of of a mutex it is not.
    >
    > I disagree.
    >
    > Think of "initialization" as a user. The system starts out initializing
    > stuff, and as such the mutex should start out being held. It's that
    > simple. It _is_ mutual exclusion, with one user being the early bootup
    > state.

    That's stretching it quite a bit. So you are saying that the owner is
    the first swapper task, from the booting CPU? Well, you better have
    that same process unlock that mutex, since a mutex has a owner and the
    owner _must_ be the one to unlock it. And in lots of these cases, it's
    some other thread that releases the lock.

    With mutexs, the owner is not a state, but a task.

    -- 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-16 23:35    [W:0.019 / U:22.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site