Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
[Posted April 3, 2006 by corbet]
| From: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org> |
| To: |
| Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation |
| Date: |
| Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:41:16 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: |
| Geert Uytterhoeven <geert-AT-linux-m68k.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>, linux-arch-AT-vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
matthew-AT-wil.cx, arjan-AT-infradead.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>, mingo-AT-elte.hu,
Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, nikita-AT-clusterfs.com,
pj-AT-sgi.com, dhowells-AT-redhat.com |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Therefor, if you want to handle that "init protection" scenario, do not
> use a mutex, because the owner can not be defined at compile -
> allocation time.
Sure it could. We certainly have "init_task", for example. It may or may
not be the right thing to use, of course. Depends on what the situation
is.
> You can still implement (chose a mechanism) a mutex on top - or in case
> of lack of priority inheritance or debugging with exactly the same -
> mechanism as a semaphore, but this does not change the semantical
> difference at all.
"Friends don't let friends use priority inheritance".
Just don't do it. If you really need it, your system is broken anyway.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
