User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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

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/


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds