Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269022AbUJULgV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:36:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270682AbUJULar (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:30:47 -0400 Received: from 213-239-205-147.clients.your-server.de ([213.239.205.147]:26019 "EHLO debian.tglx.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270477AbUJUL0O (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:26:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 From: Thomas Gleixner Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de To: Jens Axboe Cc: Rui Nuno Capela , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Lee Revell , mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com, "K.R. Foley" , Bill Huey , Adam Heath , Florian Schmidt , Michal Schmidt , Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano In-Reply-To: <20041021111116.GE10531@suse.de> References: <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> <20041021095344.GA10531@suse.de> <1098352441.26758.30.camel@thomas> <20041021101103.GC10531@suse.de> <1098353505.26758.38.camel@thomas> <20041021111116.GE10531@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: linutronix Message-Id: <1098357486.26758.48.camel@thomas> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:18:06 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1323 Lines: 35 On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 13:11, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > IMHO, this is not clearly seperated and therefor produces a lot of > > confusion. > > Semaphore and mutex has always been the same thing in Linux. Apparently > this isn't so in Ingos tree, you should make a clear distinction on > which you are discussing. I agree, but this thread is discussing Ingo's tree :) I know that semaphores and mutexes are the same, but that's something which should be seperated IMHO. Ingo's changes reviel a couple of places where completion or wait_event is more clean, than using a mutex. That's all I'm talking about. Sorry, if I did not express it clearly enough or even used a wrong expression. The points, which we identify are not wrong from the view point when they were coded. They use a mutex to wait for completion, which is functional by the mutex implementation and common use in the kernel. Part of this discussion is the given mixup in the kernel, which is functionally correct, but if a mutex is changed to a real mutex then it is wrong in the semantical sense. tglx - 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/