[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160617141912.GS30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:19:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
Cc: Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Subject: Re: initialize a mutex into locked state?
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:14:10AM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 4:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:23:35PM -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> To my surprise I found out that it's not possible to initialise a mutex into
> >> a locked state.
> >> I discussed it with Arjan and apparently there's no fundamental reason
> >> not to allow this.
> >
> > There is. A mutex _must_ have an owner. If you can initialize it in
> > locked state, you could do so statically, ie. outside of the context of
> > a task.
>
> What's wrong with disallowing only static initializers, but allowing dynamic ones?
> Then there is a clear owner.
At which point, what wrong with the simple:
mutex_init(&m);
mutex_lock(&m);
Sequence? Its obvious, has clear semantics and doesn't extend the API.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists