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

Thomas Gleixner
2005-12-16T21:41:09Z

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