From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dhylands@gmail.com (Dave Hylands)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:44:16 -0700
Subject: Problems with semaphores, mutexes, and atomic?
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimDcPWOwEMxdZdPyJdYx7KLGZn2wg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikwGgrK0FFiee1a8PvDicJa-bUedg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimDcPWOwEMxdZdPyJdYx7KLGZn2wg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimwzhucvub7ZXymxt2H5xVq=MYPvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Saeed,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:20 AM, saeed bishara <saeed.bishara@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Dave Hylands <dhylands@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote a small test module to test semaphores, mutexes and atomic
>> increments, and I've tested it with CONFIG_SMP=y with 1 and 2
>> processors and with CONFIG_SMP disabled.
>>
>> My test code can be found here:
>> http://svn.hylands.org/linux/test-mutex/test-mutex.c
>> (it's about 133 lines long).
> yout code is not complete, the DEFINE_SEMAPHORE and DEFINE_SEMAPHORE
> definitions are missing

I don't follow. Line 7 & 8 has

DEFINE_MUTEX( lock );
DEFINE_SEMAPHORE( sem_lock );

and line 19 has

DEFINE_SEMAPHORE( thread_wait );

-- 
Dave Hylands
Shuswap, BC, Canada
http://www.davehylands.com