[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080225214200.yge03wi7ksoccw0k@webmail.spamcop.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:42:00 -0500
From: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] mmiotrace full patch, preview 1
Quoting Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:49:22PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> the things which it finds.
>>
>> > +static DECLARE_MUTEX(kmmio_init_mutex);
>>
>> That's not a mutex.
>>
>> > + down(&kmmio_init_mutex);
>>
>> It's a semaphore. Please do convert it to a mutex.
>>
>> Andy, I'd say that addition of new semaphores is worth a warning - they're
>> rarely legitimate.
>
> I'm not sure that any semaphore should be a warning, but the initializer
> for semaphore used as binary mutex (DECLARE_MUTEX and init_MUTEX) are
> worth it.
It looks like a mutex, it acts like a mutex, but it isn't a mutex,
it's a trap for the unwary. Weird. I was annoyed by it before; now I
see a fellow developer actually getting into that trap.
I'd say, rename DECLARE_MUTEX to DECLARE_SEMAPHORE and let external
code be fixed one way or another (i.e. stick with the "mutex" name or
stick with the semaphore functionality if it's really needed).
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists