(追記) (追記ここまで)
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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

[Posted April 3, 2006 by corbet]

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
Date: 2005年12月16日 14:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert-AT-linux-m68k.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>, linux-arch-AT-vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, matthew-AT-wil.cx, arjan-AT-infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>, mingo-AT-elte.hu, Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, nikita-AT-clusterfs.com, pj-AT-sgi.com, dhowells-AT-redhat.com

On 2005年12月16日, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> Therefor, if you want to handle that "init protection" scenario, do not
> use a mutex, because the owner can not be defined at compile -
> allocation time.
Sure it could. We certainly have "init_task", for example. It may or may 
not be the right thing to use, of course. Depends on what the situation 
is.
> You can still implement (chose a mechanism) a mutex on top - or in case
> of lack of priority inheritance or debugging with exactly the same -
> mechanism as a semaphore, but this does not change the semantical
> difference at all.
"Friends don't let friends use priority inheritance".
Just don't do it. If you really need it, your system is broken anyway.
		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


to post comments

(追記) (追記ここまで)

Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /