Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 30 Jan 1999 19:19:15 +0000 (GMT) | From | Tim Waugh <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |