lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] down_norecurse(), down_interruptible_norecurse(), up_norecurse()
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> > norecursive semaphores. Personally I would remove MUTEX_LOCKED and I would
> > left only MUTEX, MUTEX_NORECURSE and MUTEX_LOCKED_NORECURSE... I'll do

MUTEX_NORECURSE probably isn't for a mutex -- it's semaphores that don't
want recursion. It would be nicer to have something like
SEMAPHORE(initval). If I thought long enough about it, I'm fairly sure I
could come up with a situation where you'd want to initialise a semaphore
to >1.

> Does somebody think as me (and Tim) that it worth to have usable
> norecursive semaphores in the kernel?

Surely, as scsi_error.c is a case in point.

Tim.
*/


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.072 / U:1.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site