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

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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?

No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

P.S. Long live the common vocabulary ;-)
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
-
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/