* Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> > -#define mutex_init(lock, type, name) sema_init(lock, 1)
> > -#define mutex_destroy(lock) sema_init(lock, -99)
> > -#define mutex_lock(lock, num) down(lock)
> > -#define mutex_trylock(lock) (down_trylock(lock) ? 0 : 1)
> > -#define mutex_unlock(lock) up(lock)
> > +#define xfs_mutex_init(lock, type, name) sema_init(lock, 1)
> > +#define xfs_mutex_destroy(lock) sema_init(lock, -99)
> > +#define xfs_mutex_lock(lock, num) down(lock)
> > +#define xfs_mutex_trylock(lock) (down_trylock(lock) ? 0 : 1)
> > +#define xfs_mutex_unlock(lock) up(lock)
>
> Again, this should really be using the mutex primitives (obviously
> ;-)).
yeah - but i didnt want to impact something so large as XFS. Such a
change has to be tested and validated - so i wanted to get the namespace
collision out of the way first. But i'd be happy to add an XFS
conversion patch ontop of these, provided someone tests it.
> While we're at it, maybe we should a mutex_destroy aswell? it would
> be non-mandatory and allow that a lock is gone for the debugging
> variant.
right now the lock is gone from the debugging state once it's unlocked.
I'll add mutex_destroy(), it should be rather easy (it can e.g. destroy
mutex->magic).
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
