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

* David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > >      	init_MUTEX_LOCKED()
> > > 	DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED()
> > 
> > please kill these two in the simple mutex implementation - they are a 
> > sign of mutexes used as completions.
> 
> That can be done later. It's not necessary to do it in this particular 
> patch set.

i disagree - it's necessary that we dont build complexities into the 
'simple' mutex type, or the whole game starts again. I.e. the 'owner 
unlocks the mutex' rule must be enforced - which makes 
DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED() meaningless.

	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/

---

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

• Prev by Date: [PATCH -mm 2/9] unshare system call : system call registration for i386
• Next by Date: [PATCH -mm 8/9] unshare system call: allow unsharing of vm
• 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]