Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268845AbUJUJws (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:52:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268860AbUJUJwU (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:52:20 -0400 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([81.187.226.98]:63753 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270493AbUJUJr2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 05:47:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:47:26 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Gleixner , Rui Nuno Capela , LKML , Lee Revell , mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com, "K.R. Foley" , Bill Huey , Adam Heath , Florian Schmidt , Michal Schmidt , Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 Message-ID: <20041021094726.GA2652@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Rui Nuno Capela , LKML , Lee Revell , mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com, "K.R. Foley" , Bill Huey , Adam Heath , Florian Schmidt , Michal Schmidt , Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano References: <20041015102633.GA20132@elte.hu> <20041016153344.GA16766@elte.hu> <20041018145008.GA25707@elte.hu> <20041019124605.GA28896@elte.hu> <20041019180059.GA23113@elte.hu> <20041020094508.GA29080@elte.hu> <30690.195.245.190.93.1098349976.squirrel@195.245.190.93> <1098350190.26758.24.camel@thomas> <20041021093532.GA2482@infradead.org> <20041021094438.GA30986@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041021094438.GA30986@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by phoenix.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 886 Lines: 21 On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 11:44:38AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > The problem is that semaphores are hold by Process A and released by > > > Process B, which makes Ingo's checks trigger > > > > Which is perfectly valid for a semaphore. > > yes, it is valid and perfectly fine code, but i'm trying to separate out > the simple 'mutex' functionality (99% of the semaphore users are just > that) and implement a 'counted semaphore' separately. This removes a > number of implementational constraints from mutexes. So leave the good old struct semaphore alone and introduce a mutex_t.. - 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/