[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/12]: MUTEX: Implement mutexes

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 23:13 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> >>This patch set does the following:
> >>
> >> DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED for counting semaphores.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Could we really get rid of that "MUTEX" part. A counting semaphore is
> > _not_ a mutex, although a mutex _is_ a counting semaphore. As is a Jack
> > Russell is a dog, but a dog is not a Jack Russell.
> >
> Really?
> A Jack Russell is a dog because anything you say about a dog can
> also be said about a Jack Russell.

I said a Jack Russell _is_ a dog, but a dog is not a Jack Russell.
Everything you can say about a dog you can't say about a Jack Russell.
Since, a dog can have other characteristics than a Jack Russell has. A dog
can be big and lazy, but I would not say that about a Jack Russell.

> A counting semaphore is a mutex for the same reason (and observe
> that 99% of users use the semaphore as a mutex). A mutex definitely
> is not a counting semaphore. David's implementation of mutexes
> don't count at all.

But a counting semaphore of (one) _is_ a mutex! But a mutex can't have
more than one. As for David's code, that's just arguing implementation,
and not the semantics of it.

-- Steve

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-17 13:39    [W:0.086 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site