Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 13:11, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > IMHO, this is not clearly seperated and therefor produces a lot of
> > confusion.
> 
> Semaphore and mutex has always been the same thing in Linux. Apparently
> this isn't so in Ingos tree, you should make a clear distinction on
> which you are discussing.

I agree, but this thread is discussing Ingo's tree :)

I know that semaphores and mutexes are the same, but that's something
which should be seperated IMHO. 

Ingo's changes reviel a couple of places where completion or wait_event
is more clean, than using a mutex. That's all I'm talking about. Sorry,
if I did not express it clearly enough or even used a wrong expression. 

The points, which we identify are not wrong from the view point when
they were coded. They use a mutex to wait for completion, which is
functional by the mutex implementation and common use in the kernel.

Part of this discussion is the given mixup in the kernel, which is
functionally correct, but if a mutex is changed to a real mutex then it
is wrong in the semantical sense.

tglx



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/