|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 email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds