[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090727152407.GA31597@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:24:08 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch RFC 01/37] semaphore: Add DEFINE_SEMAPHORE,
semaphore_init, semaphore_init_locked
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 08:17:11AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The full cleanup of init_MUTEX[_LOCKED] and DECLARE_MUTEX has not been
> done. Some of the users are real semaphores and we should name them as
> such instead of confusing everyone with "MUTEX".
> +#define DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(name) \
> + struct semaphore name = __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER(name, 1)
> +
> +static inline void semaphore_init(struct semanphore *sem)
> +{
> + sema_init(sem, 1);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * semaphore_init_locked() is mostly a sign for a mutex which is
> + * abused as completion.
> + */
> +static inline void __deprecated semaphore_init_locked(struct semanphore *sem)
> +{
> + sema_init(sem, 0);
> +}
The CS literature doesn't really know about a default value for counting
semaphores. I think you're better off converting init_MUTEX and
init_MUTEX_locked to explicit sema_init use than adding these and
introducing another semaphore_* namespace in addition to the sema_* we
already have. Adding a DEFINE_SEMAPHORE makes sense, but it should take
a second argument for it's initial value.
--
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