On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:17:18 +0200
"Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (looks at
> > lock_cpu_hotplug())
> >
> Hmm, I'll take a look at lock_cpu_hotplug() - can you provide
> additional details?
>
eh. We put the recursive-sem thing in there as a temp fix to cpufreq to
get 2.6.something out the door, expressing fine intentions to fix it for
real later on. Then look what happened. Don't go there.
>
> > That being said, no, we can't go and rename up(). Let us go through the
> > patches one-at-a-time..
> >
> i figured as much. *But* won't you agree that up_sem() (or considering
> the other locking function names, sem_up() would probably be better)
> would be a much better name for a global like this one?
>
> How about a plan like this:
> We introduce sem_up() and sem_down() wrapper functions now. They could
> go into 2.6.19 for example - and also add a note to
> feature-removal-schedule.txt that the old function names will be
> removed in 1 year. Then in a few kernel versions - say 2.6.21 - we
> deprecate the old names and add a big fac comment in the source as
> well.
> Wouldn't that be doable? Or do we have to live with up()/down() forever?
Well actually when struct mutex went in we decided to remove all
non-counting uses of semaphores kernel-wide, migrating them to mutexes.
Then to remove all the arch-specific semaphore implementations and
implement an arch-neutral version. After that has been done would be an
appropriate time to rename things.
But it never happened. See "fine intentions", above ;)
-
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]
