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

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David Howells wrote:
> 
> But what to do about DECLARE_MUTEX? :-/

It's correctly named right now (it _does_ declare a mutex, despite the 
insane noise from the sidelines).

I would suggest that if you create a new "mutex" type, you just keep the 
lower-case name. Don't re-use the DECLARE_MUTEX format, just do

	struct mutex my_mutex = UNLOCKED_MUTEX;

for new code that uses the new stuff.

Think about it a bit. We don't have DECLARE_SPINLOCK either. Why?

Hint: we have DECLARE_MUTEX exactly because it's also DOCUMENTATION that 
we use a semaphore as a pure binary mutex. Not because we need it.

If you create a real "struct mutex", then something like the current 
DECLARE_MUTEX() is simply not relevant for the new type.

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/