On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 14:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Well, in case of a semaphore it is a semantically correct use case. In > > case of of a mutex it is not. > > I disagree. > > Think of "initialization" as a user. The system starts out initializing > stuff, and as such the mutex should start out being held. It's that > simple. It _is_ mutual exclusion, with one user being the early bootup > state.
That's stretching it quite a bit. So you are saying that the owner is the first swapper task, from the booting CPU? Well, you better have that same process unlock that mutex, since a mutex has a owner and the owner _must_ be the one to unlock it. And in lots of these cases, it's some other thread that releases the lock. With mutexs, the owner is not a state, but a task. -- Steve
