From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:00:15 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation Message-ID: <20051213100015.GA32194@elte.hu> References: <20051212161944.3185a3f9.akpm@osdl.org> <20051213075441.GB6765@elte.hu> <20051213090219.GA27857@infradead.org> <20051213093949.GC26097@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051213093949.GC26097@elte.hu> To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , David Howells , torvalds@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:54:41AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > - i did not touch the 'struct semaphore' namespace, but introduced a > > > 'struct compat_semaphore'. > > > > Because it's totally braindead. Your compat_semaphore is a real > > semaphore and your semaphore is a mutex. So name them as such. > > well, i had the choice between a 30K patch, a 300K patch and a 3000K > patch. I went for the 30K patch ;-) in that sense i'm all for going for the 300K patch, which is roughly the direction David is heading into: rename to 'struct mutex' but keep the down/up APIs, and introduce sem_down()/sem_up()/ for the cases that need full semaphores. i dont think the 3000K patch (full API rename, introduction of mutex_down()/mutex_up()) is realistic. Ingo