From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48F7BC58.7040506@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:12:40 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20081016154620.320953568@domain.hid> <20081016154621.318326730@domain.hid> <48F79C8E.3070900@domain.hid> <48F7B86D.8090204@domain.hid> <48F7B90D.3030107@domain.hid> <48F7BB23.9090600@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <48F7BB23.9090600@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH 06/12] Lockless fast path for xnsynch_acquire/release List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok. Though I do not see the point of the FASTSEM/FASTSYNCH rename. >>>> FASTSEM is short, and we are not much interested in getting anything >>>> else than semaphores faster. >>> We aren't optimizing semaphores (at least not yet), we are optimizing >>> mutexes only. And if we ever optimize also semaphores, FASTSYNCH will >>> luckily still fit. :) >> The name was chosen because we plan to optimize semaphores as well, and >> because mutexes are simply a special kind of semaphores, so, by saying >> FASTSEM, we cover semaphores as well as mutexes. > > That depends on how you define both - most semaphore definitions do not > include the ownership concept, thus are not a superclass of > (owner-tracking) mutexes we consider here. >>From my point of view, a mutex is a semaphore. If we imagine it in simple OOP terms, the mutex class inherit from the semaphore class. Yes, it has an owner member which the semaphore has not, but it still is a semaphore. -- Gilles.