Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:03:37 +0200 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/12] making the kernel -Wshadow clean - fix mconf |
| |
On 30/07/06, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:17:18 +0200 > "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > (looks at > > > lock_cpu_hotplug()) > > > > > Hmm, I'll take a look at lock_cpu_hotplug() - can you provide > > additional details? > > > > eh. We put the recursive-sem thing in there as a temp fix to cpufreq to > get 2.6.something out the door, expressing fine intentions to fix it for > real later on. Then look what happened. Don't go there. >
Ok, that's probably way over my head, but I'll dig in none the less and see what I can do to help. It'll probably land me in a world of hurt, but I've taken flames before and I'm still here ;-) Don't expect much, but I'll see if there's anything I can do at least.
> > > > > That being said, no, we can't go and rename up(). Let us go through the > > > patches one-at-a-time.. > > > > > i figured as much. *But* won't you agree that up_sem() (or considering > > the other locking function names, sem_up() would probably be better) > > would be a much better name for a global like this one? > > > > How about a plan like this: > > We introduce sem_up() and sem_down() wrapper functions now. They could > > go into 2.6.19 for example - and also add a note to > > feature-removal-schedule.txt that the old function names will be > > removed in 1 year. Then in a few kernel versions - say 2.6.21 - we > > deprecate the old names and add a big fac comment in the source as > > well. > > Wouldn't that be doable? Or do we have to live with up()/down() forever? > > Well actually when struct mutex went in we decided to remove all > non-counting uses of semaphores kernel-wide, migrating them to mutexes.
Makes sense.
> Then to remove all the arch-specific semaphore implementations and > implement an arch-neutral version. After that has been done would be an > appropriate time to rename things. >
Ok, that is (again) probably beyond me, but I'll still take a look at it just for the hell of it. If nothing else I can at least keep an eye out for when we reach the point we want to be at and then submit renaming patches... let's see..
> But it never happened. See "fine intentions", above ;) > Heh, The road to hell is paved with fine intentions ;-)
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
| |