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

On Maw, 2005-12-13 at 13:32 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Its then obvious what it does, you don't randomly break other drivers you've
> > not reviewed and the interface is intuitive rather than obfuscated.
> 
> I've attempted to review everything in 2.6.15-rc5 outside of most of the archs.
> I can't easily modify any driver not contained in that tarball, but at least
> the compiler will barf and force a review.


Is there a reason you didnt answer the comment about down/up being the
usual way computing refers to the operations on counting semaphores but
just deleted it ?

-
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: Alan Cox <[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: Re: [2.6 patch] defconfig's shouldn't set CONFIG_BROKEN=y
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/9] unshare system call (take 3)
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]