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

> (5) Redirects the following to apply to the new mutexes rather than the
>     traditional semaphores:
>
>	down()
>	down_trylock()
>	down_interruptible()
>	up()

This will BREAK a lot of out-of-tree stuff if merged.

So please figure out some way to hang a HUGE banner out there
so that the external codebases know they need updating.

The simplest way would be to NOT re-use the up()/down() symbols,
but rather to either keep them as-is (counting semaphores),
or delete them entirely (so that external code *knows* of the change).

Cheers
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
  - From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
  - From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
  - From: David Howells <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: [2.6 patch] kernel/resource.c: __check_region(): remove pointless __deprecated
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/3] [kconfig] Direct use of lxdialog routines by menuconfig
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]