Return-Path: Received: by vger.rutgers.edu via listexpand id <157352-27302>; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:14:01 -0500 Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <157359-27302>; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:13:38 -0500 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:20542 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id <157404-27302>; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:11:06 -0500 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:23:34 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Tim Waugh Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: [patch] down_norecurse(), down_interruptible_norecurse(), up_norecurse() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-PgP-Public-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Content-Length: 729 Lines: 19 On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Tim Waugh wrote: > MUTEX_NORECURSE probably isn't for a mutex -- it's semaphores that don't > want recursion. It would be nicer to have something like > SEMAPHORE(initval). If I thought long enough about it, I'm fairly sure I > could come up with a situation where you'd want to initialise a semaphore > to >1. Ok. I think the MUTEX word was to tell that you wanted a semaphore initialized to 1 (as a mutex unlocked), but agreed, SEMAPHORE(x) looks a better name for the norecursive semaphore initializer. Andrea Arcangeli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/