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

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 13:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > > No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion.
> > 
> > Well, then let us use a completion and not some semantically wrong
> > workaround
> 
> It is _not_ wrong to have a semaphore start out in locked state.
> 
> For example, it makes perfect sense if the data structures that the 
> semaphore needs need initialization. The way you _should_ handle that is 
> to make the semaphore come up as locked, and the data structures in some 
> "don't matter" state, and then the thing that initializes stuff can do so 
> properly and then release the semaphore.
> 
> Yes, in some cases such a locked semaphore is only used once, and ends up 
> being a "completion", but that doesn't invalidate the fact that this is 
> a perfectly fine way to handle a real issue.

Well, in case of a semaphore it is a semantically correct use case. In
case of of a mutex it is not.

Gerd was talking about a mutex. The fact that a mutex is implemented on
top (or on actually the same) mechanism as a semaphore - for what ever
reason - does not change the semantical difference between semaphores
and mutexes.

	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: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 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]>
  • 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: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Nikita Danilov <[email protected]>
  • 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: 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
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[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: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Next by Date: cpufreq broken in 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):
  • 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]