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

Mark Lord
2005-12-14T23:57:38Z

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:40 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
...
>>Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option.
>
...
>Doing a s/down/lock_mutex/ s/up/unlock_mutex/ - or whatever naming
> convention we want to use - all over the place for mutexes while keeping
> the up/down for counting semaphores is an one time issue.
>
> After the conversion every code breaks at compile time which tries to do
> up/down(mutex_type).
>
> So the out of tree drivers have a clear indication what to fix. This is
> also a one time issue.
>
> So where is the problem - except for fixing "huge" amounts of out of
> kernel code once ?

Pointless API breakage. The same functions continue to exist,
the old names CANNOT be reused for some (longish) time,
so there's no point in renaming them. It just breaks an API
for no good reason whatsoever.

Cheers