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

Ingo Molnar
2005-12-13T09:37:45Z

* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:

> > it's not _that_ bad, if done overnight. It does not touch any of the
> > down/up APIs. Touching those would create a monster patch and monster
> > impact.
>
> One argument for a full rename (and abandoning the old "struct
> semaphore" name completely) would be that it would offer a clean break
> for out tree code, no silent breakage.

btw., in the -rt tree we rarely had 'silent breakage' - roughly 80% of
the cases were caught build-time: we eliminated DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED,
which is a clear sign for non-mutex semaphore usage. Another 19% was
caught by runtime checks: 'does owner unlock the mutex'. The remaining
1% was breakage that was not found quickly.

Ingo