* Bill Huey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:10:31PM +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> > Unfortunately, one of the goals of the preempt-rt branch is to avoid
> > altering too much code. Therefore the type semaphore can't be removed
> > there. Therefore the name still lingers ... :-(
>
> This is where you failed. You assumed that that person making the
> comment, Christopher, in the first place didn't have his head up his
> ass in the first place and was open to your end of the discussion.
please take me off the Cc: list for such kind of replies. Christoph is
very much entitled to his opinion, which i happen to mostly share in
this case: we should not be bothering upstream with requirements unique
to PREEMPT_RT. PREEMPT_RT restricts struct semaphore to be a mutex, and
that doesnt make it a classic semaphore anymore. We had no other choice
but it's still somewhat unclean in that regard.
(I do disagree with Christoph on another point: i do think we eventually
want to change the standard semaphore type in a similar fashion upstream
as well - but that probably has to come with a s/struct semaphore/struct
mutex/ change as well.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
