Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 21:32 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Why have the "MUTEX" part in there?  Shouldn't that just be DECLARE_SEM
> > (oops, I mean DEFINE_SEM).  Especially that MUTEX_LOCKED! What is that?
> > How does a MUTEX start off as locked.  It can't, since a mutex must
> > always have an owner (which, by the way, helped us in the -rt patch to
> > find our "compat_semaphores").  So who's the owner of a
> > DEFINE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED?
> 
> No one. It's not really a mutex, but a completion.

Well, then let us use a completion and not some semantically wrong
workaround

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/