From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:31:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation Message-ID: <20051214083133.GA17532@elte.hu> References: <439EDC3D.5040808@nortel.com> <1134479118.11732.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3874.1134480759@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <15167.1134488373@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15167.1134488373@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> To: David Howells Cc: Christopher Friesen , Alan Cox , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, arjan@infradead.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * David Howells wrote: > (3) Some people want mutexes to be: > > (a) only releasable in the same context as they were taken > > (b) not accessible in interrupt context, or that (a) applies here also > > (c) not initialisable to the locked state > > But this means that the current usages all have to be carefully audited, > and sometimes that unobvious. (a) and (c) is not a big problem, are they are essentially the constraints of -rt mutexes. As long as there's good debugging code, it's very much doable. We dont want to change semantics _yet again_, later down the line. Ingo