Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:37:00 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, torvalds@osdl.org,
       hch@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
Message-ID: <20051213093700.GB26097@elte.hu>
References: <dhowells1134431145@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <1134460804.2866.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20051213090349.GE10088@elte.hu> <20051213090917.GC15804@wotan.suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051213090917.GC15804@wotan.suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 961
Lines: 23


* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:

> > it's not _that_ bad, if done overnight. It does not touch any of the 
> > down/up APIs. Touching those would create a monster patch and monster 
> > impact.
> 
> One argument for a full rename (and abandoning the old "struct 
> semaphore" name completely) would be that it would offer a clean break 
> for out tree code, no silent breakage.

btw., in the -rt tree we rarely had 'silent breakage' - roughly 80% of 
the cases were caught build-time: we eliminated DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED, 
which is a clear sign for non-mutex semaphore usage. Another 19% was 
caught by runtime checks: 'does owner unlock the mutex'. The remaining 
1% was breakage that was not found quickly.

	Ingo
-
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/