On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It's say just switch XFS to the one-arg mutex_init variant.
> >
> > And ingo. please add the mutex_t typedef, analogue to spinlock_t it's
> > a totally opaqueue to the users type, so it really should be a
> > typedef. After that the XFS mutex.h can just go away.
>
> that's not possible, due to DEFINE_MUTEX() and due to struct mutex being
> embedded in other structures. I dont think we want to lose that property
> of struct semaphore, and only restrict mutex usage to pointers.
Sorry, but I don't get this sentence at all. Can you try to rephrase it?
What does DEFINE_MUTEX have to do with declaring either a typedef or
structure?
-
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/
[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]
