On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:57 -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. Well, depends on the POV. A counting sempahore is a different beast than a mutex. At least as far as my limited knowledge of concurrency controls goes. The API breakage was introduced by using up/down for mutexes and not by correcting this to a sane API. tglx - 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: David Howells <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Linus Torvalds <[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
- From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- Prev by Date: [GIT PATCH] final SCSI fixes for 2.6.15-rc5
- Next by Date: Re: "block" symlink in sysfs for a multifunction device
- 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):
 |