On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Well, in case of a semaphore it is a semantically correct use case. In > case of of a mutex it is not. I disagree. Think of "initialization" as a user. The system starts out initializing stuff, and as such the mutex should start out being held. It's that simple. It _is_ mutual exclusion, with one user being the early bootup state. 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.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: 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
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- 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: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- 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: linux 2.6.14.4 sparc compile problem
- 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):
 |