* Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It's say just switch XFS to the one-arg mutex_init variant.
> > >
> > > And ingo. please add the mutex_t typedef, analogue to spinlock_t it's
> > > a totally opaqueue to the users type, so it really should be a
> > > typedef. After that the XFS mutex.h can just go away.
> >
> > that's not possible, due to DEFINE_MUTEX() and due to struct mutex being
> > embedded in other structures. I dont think we want to lose that property
> > of struct semaphore, and only restrict mutex usage to pointers.
>
> Sorry, but I don't get this sentence at all. Can you try to rephrase
> it? What does DEFINE_MUTEX have to do with declaring either a typedef
> or structure?
i think i misunderstood you. I thought you wanted a mutex_t a'la
kmem_cache_t (which is only fully defined in mm/slab.c) - for the
purpose of hiding the implementation of mutex_t. If the implementation
of mutex_t is still present in mutex.h, i dont see what the advantage
is. What's the difference between 'struct mutex' and 'mutex_t', besides
that first one being clearer that here we have a kernel object? (we
generally use the _t types for type-safe variations of integer types,
e.g. pte_t.)
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]
