On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, David Howells wrote:
>
> But what to do about DECLARE_MUTEX? :-/
It's correctly named right now (it _does_ declare a mutex, despite the
insane noise from the sidelines).
I would suggest that if you create a new "mutex" type, you just keep the
lower-case name. Don't re-use the DECLARE_MUTEX format, just do
struct mutex my_mutex = UNLOCKED_MUTEX;
for new code that uses the new stuff.
Think about it a bit. We don't have DECLARE_SPINLOCK either. Why?
Hint: we have DECLARE_MUTEX exactly because it's also DOCUMENTATION that
we use a semaphore as a pure binary mutex. Not because we need it.
If you create a real "struct mutex", then something like the current
DECLARE_MUTEX() is simply not relevant for the new type.
Linus
