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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > it's not _that_ bad, if done overnight. It does not touch any of the 
> > down/up APIs. Touching those would create a monster patch and monster 
> > impact.
> 
> One argument for a full rename (and abandoning the old "struct 
> semaphore" name completely) would be that it would offer a clean break 
> for out tree code, no silent breakage.

btw., in the -rt tree we rarely had 'silent breakage' - roughly 80% of 
the cases were caught build-time: we eliminated DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED, 
which is a clear sign for non-mutex semaphore usage. Another 19% was 
caught by runtime checks: 'does owner unlock the mutex'. The remaining 
1% was breakage that was not found quickly.

	Ingo
-
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/