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

Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 ?

up/down is also used in conjunction with mutexes and R/W semaphores, so
counting semaphores do not have exclusive rights to the terminology.

David
-
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: Miles Bader <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
  - From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- 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: [patch] SMP alternatives for i386
Next by Date: Re: Prevent overriding of Symbols in the Kernel, avoiding Undefined behaviour
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]