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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:05:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] Preparatory patch for semaphore cleanup

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, 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()?

DECLARE_MUTEX is what we want to get rid of. 

It's a misnomer as the semaphores are not longer used as mutexes and
the instantiation of a variable is not the declaration.
 
> 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..

That's a temporary situaton until all users are gone, which will be in
the 37 merge window.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/