Re: [PATCH] change acquire/release_console_sem() to console_lock/unlock()

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:55:02 +0100
torbenh <torbenh@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:34:48AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:58:13PM +0100, Torben Hohn wrote:
> > > the -rt patches change the console_semaphore to console_mutex.
> > > so a quite large chunk of the patches changes all
> > > acquire/release_console_sem() to acquire/release_console_mutex()
> > 
> > Why not just change the functionality of the existing function to be a
> > mutex in the rt patches, instead of having to rename it everywhere?
> 
> i hope that Thomas already did this in his upcoming -rt series.
> 
> > 
> > > this commit makes things use more neutral function names
> > > which dont make implications about the underlying lock.
> > > 
> > > the only real change is the return value of console_trylock
> > > which is inverted from try_acquire_console_sem()
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Torben Hohn <torbenh@gmx.de>
> > > CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@tglx.de>
> > 
> > I don't mind this rename, but is it really going to help anything out?
> > What's the odds of the -rt portion of this patch ever making it to
> > mainline?
> 
> the -rt portion only changes the semaphore to a mutex.
> since the console_sem is used with mutex semantics, i dont see any
> reason, not to merge that portion too. 
> 
> i am just trying to shrink the -rt patch to make it more maintanable :)
> 

Yeah, I think it's a better name and if we can indeed switch that
semaphore to a mutex then that's a good thing to do.