Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 11:21 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David Howells wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > 	FROM				TO
> >  > 	==============================	=========================
> >  > 	DECLARE_MUTEX			DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX
> >  > 	DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED		DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED
> >  > 	Proper counting semaphore	DECLARE_SEM
> > 
> >  That sounds fine.
> 
> They should be renamed to DEFINE_* while we're there.  A "declaration" is
> "this thing is defined somewhere else".  A "definition" is "this thing is
> defined here".

Why have the "MUTEX" part in there?  Shouldn't that just be DECLARE_SEM
(oops, I mean DEFINE_SEM).  Especially that MUTEX_LOCKED! What is that?
How does a MUTEX start off as locked.  It can't, since a mutex must
always have an owner (which, by the way, helped us in the -rt patch to
find our "compat_semaphores").  So who's the owner of a
DEFINE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED?

-- Steve


-
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/