[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1283961504.23762.34.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:58:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] Preparatory patch for semaphore cleanup
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 17:56 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> and DEFINE_MUTEX() is needed upstream so that we can spread those
s/DEFINE_MUTEX/DEFINE_SEMAPHORE/
> patches into a dozen maintainer trees. Once those flow upstream
> DECLARE_MUTEX() will be removed.
--
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