linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] Preparatory patch for semaphore cleanup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1283957961.23762.28.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:59:21 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] Preparatory patch for semaphore cleanup

On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 07:54 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > This patch just provides the DEFINE_SEMAPHORE macro which is required
> > for the various subsystem cleanups I sent out, so we can finally get
> > rid of init_MUTEX[_LOCKED] in 2.6.37.
> 
> Why is it called DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(), when two lines later the we have
> DECLARE_MUTEX()?
> 
> IOW, the whole DEFINE vs DECLARE thing seems confused. I'm not saying
> one is better than the other (maybe "define" is), but the mixing of
> names is worse than either, I feel..

The rest of the series, that Thomas didn't include in this pull, removes
all the DECLARE_MUTEX() users. So its temporary awkward-ness.
--
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/