On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 21:32 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Why have the "MUTEX" part in there? Shouldn't that just be DECLARE_SEM > > (oops, I mean DEFINE_SEM). Especially that MUTEX_LOCKED! What is that? > > How does a MUTEX start off as locked. It can't, since a mutex must > > always have an owner (which, by the way, helped us in the -rt patch to > > find our "compat_semaphores"). So who's the owner of a > > DEFINE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED? > > No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion. Well, then let us use a completion and not some semantically wrong workaround tglx - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
- [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- Prev by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks
- Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks
- 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):
 |