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

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 12:35 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Why bother. As has already been discussed up and down are the natural
> > and normal names for counting semaphores. You don't need to obsolete the
> > old API thats just silly, you need to add a new one and wait for people
> > to use it.
> 
> The vast majority of ups and downs are actually mutex related not semaphore
> related, so by majority share, up/down perhaps ought to be repurposed to
> mutexes: they _are_ the preeminent uses.
> 
> From my modified tree, I see:
> 
> 	semaphore	up	down	down_in	down_try
> 	Counting	41	59	1	0
> 	Mutex		4405	2824	362	107
> 
> > The old API is still very useful for some applications that want
> > counting semaphores.
> 
> Whilst that is true, they're in a small minority, and it'd be easier to change
> them.

You can do a full scripted rename of up/down to the mutex API and then
fix up the 100 places used by semaphores manually.

	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/