Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750801AbVLOQ3S (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:29:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750800AbVLOQ3S (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:29:18 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:62860 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750792AbVLOQ3R (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:29:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:28:11 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Howells cc: Nikita Danilov , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, pj@sgi.com, mingo@elte.hu, hch@infradead.org, arjan@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 In-Reply-To: <4743.1134662116@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <17313.37200.728099.873988@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1134559121.25663.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <13820.1134558138@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20051213143147.d2a57fb3.pj@sgi.com> <20051213094053.33284360.pj@sgi.com> <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <20051213090219.GA27857@infradead.org> <20051213093949.GC26097@elte.hu> <20051213100015.GA32194@elte.hu> <6281.1134498864@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <14242.1134558772@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <16315.1134563707@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <1134568731.4275.4.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <43A0AD54.6050109@rtr.ca> <20051214155432.320f2950.akpm@osdl.org> <17313.29296.170999.539035@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <1134658579.12421.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4743.1134662116@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1007 Lines: 30 On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David Howells wrote: > > But what to do about DECLARE_MUTEX? :-/ It's correctly named right now (it _does_ declare a mutex, despite the insane noise from the sidelines). I would suggest that if you create a new "mutex" type, you just keep the lower-case name. Don't re-use the DECLARE_MUTEX format, just do struct mutex my_mutex = UNLOCKED_MUTEX; for new code that uses the new stuff. Think about it a bit. We don't have DECLARE_SPINLOCK either. Why? Hint: we have DECLARE_MUTEX exactly because it's also DOCUMENTATION that we use a semaphore as a pure binary mutex. Not because we need it. If you create a real "struct mutex", then something like the current DECLARE_MUTEX() is simply not relevant for the new type. Linus - 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/