On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Therefor, if you want to handle that "init protection" scenario, do not > use a mutex, because the owner can not be defined at compile - > allocation time. Sure it could. We certainly have "init_task", for example. It may or may not be the right thing to use, of course. Depends on what the situation is. > You can still implement (chose a mechanism) a mutex on top - or in case > of lack of priority inheritance or debugging with exactly the same - > mechanism as a semaphore, but this does not change the semantical > difference at all. "Friends don't let friends use priority inheritance". Just don't do it. If you really need it, your system is broken anyway. 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: Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.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: 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: 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
- 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: [PATCH] mips: namespace pollution: dump_regs() -> elf_dump_regs()
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] drivers/pci/: possible cleanups
- 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):
 |