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

[Paul Jackson]

> But what to do about DECLARE_MUTEX? :-/

A phased change of just the renames:
	DECLARE_MUTEX ==> DECLARE_SEM
	init_MUTEX ==> init_SEM
	DECLARE_MUTEX_LOCKED ==> DECLARE_SEM_LOCKED
	init_MUTEX_LOCKED ==> init_SEM_LOCKED

seems doable.  A scripted replacement, so long as it specifies whole
word replacement only, seems to be a very robust replacement for these
four symbols, unlike "up"/"down", which are scary at best to consider
wholesale replacement.

Add the new *_SEM in one release as aliases for the current *_MUTEX,
do the wholesale replacement of the above names, leaving the old as
aliases in a second release, remove the old *_MUTEX aliases in a third
release, and them restore them as new 'real mutex' methods in a fourth
release.  Be sure that the new *_MUTEX versions will generate a compile
error if handed the old counting semaphore type.

I'm a stickler for names ... at least until Linus/Andrew show me
the foolishness of my ways, I could find such a change appealing.

Of course, they're the ones with all the sweat equity on the line,
not me.

... I'd better duck and get back to bug fixing, before I get hit ...

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401
-
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/