User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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

From:  Linus Torvalds <>
To:  Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject:  Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
Date:  Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Cc:  Geert Uytterhoeven <>, Steven Rostedt <>, Andrew Morton <>,, Linux Kernel Development <>,,, Christoph Hellwig <>,, Alan Cox <>,,,

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 

> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

(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