Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:40 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
...
Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option.
...
Doing a s/down/lock_mutex/ s/up/unlock_mutex/ - or whatever naming convention we want to use - all over the place for mutexes while keeping the up/down for counting semaphores is an one time issue. After the conversion every code breaks at compile time which tries to do up/down(mutex_type). So the out of tree drivers have a clear indication what to fix. This is also a one time issue. So where is the problem - except for fixing "huge" amounts of out of kernel code once ?
Pointless API breakage. The same functions continue to exist, the old names CANNOT be reused for some (longish) time, so there's no point in renaming them. It just breaks an API for no good reason whatsoever. 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: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- 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: David Howells <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Paul Jackson <[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: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [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]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] make dm-mirror not issue invalid resync requests
- Next by Date: [GIT PATCH] final SCSI fixes for 2.6.15-rc5
- 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):
 |