Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:41:16 -0800 (PST) | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Therefor, if you want to handle that "init protection" scenario, do not > use a mutex, because the owner can not be defined at compile - > allocation time.
Sure it could. We certainly have "init_task", for example. It may or may not be the right thing to use, of course. Depends on what the situation is.
> You can still implement (chose a mechanism) a mutex on top - or in case > of lack of priority inheritance or debugging with exactly the same - > mechanism as a semaphore, but this does not change the semantical > difference at all.
"Friends don't let friends use priority inheritance".
Just don't do it. If you really need it, your system is broken anyway.
Linus - 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/
|  |