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

Steven Rostedt
2005-12-15T20:28:52Z

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 11:21 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David Howells wrote:
> > >
> > > FROM TO
> > > ============================== =========================
> > > DECLARE_MUTEX DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX
> > > DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED DECLARE_SEM_MUTEX_LOCKED
> > > Proper counting semaphore DECLARE_SEM
> >
> > That sounds fine.
>
> They should be renamed to DEFINE_* while we're there. A "declaration" is
> "this thing is defined somewhere else". A "definition" is "this thing is
> defined here".

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?

-- Steve