Re: [patch 00/62] sem2mutex: -V1

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> writes:

> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 23:04 +0200, Matan Peled wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > Ingo Oeser wrote:
>> >> Could we get for each of these and a mutex:
>> >>
>> >>  - description 
>> >>  - common use case
>> >>  - small argument why this and nothing else should be used there
>> > 
>> > like ... Documentation/mutex-design.txt?
>> 
>> I think what he wanted was an explanation for the change of each and every 
>> sem... Which is kind of hard with automated tools.
> `
> it's also HIGHLY repetitive.
> 1) The process is : Look at semaphore and it's uses.
> 2) Decide it's a mutex
> 3) Run script to convert to mutex
> 4) Run script to validate the conversion
> 5) build+boot test
>
> I can't think of a way to describe that uniquely different for each
> one ;0

I do not read Ingo Oeser's request as such, but if somebody does
1) and 2), ideally, the knowledge obtained during that process,
i.e. what is being protected and what the invariants are, and
the reasoning why it is a mutex, could serve as a good
documentation for people who want to further work on that code
being converted to use mutex.

However, I think demanding Ingo (Molnar) to do all that is
unfair.