Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 18:57 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> >>Leaving up()/down() as-is is really the most sensible option.
> > 
> ...
> >Doing a s/down/lock_mutex/ s/up/unlock_mutex/ - or whatever naming
> > convention we want to use - all over the place for mutexes while keeping
> > the up/down for counting semaphores is an one time issue.
> > 
> > After the conversion every code breaks at compile time which tries to do
> > up/down(mutex_type).
> > 
> > So the out of tree drivers have a clear indication what to fix. This is
> > also a one time issue.
> > 
> > So where is the problem - except for fixing "huge" amounts of out of
> > kernel code once ?
> 
> Pointless API breakage.  The same functions continue to exist,
> the old names CANNOT be reused for some (longish) time,
> so there's no point in renaming them.  It just breaks an API
> for no good reason whatsoever.

Well, depends on the POV. A counting sempahore is a different beast than
a mutex. At least as far as my limited knowledge of concurrency controls
goes.

The API breakage was introduced by using up/down for mutexes and not by
correcting this to a sane API.

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/