On Saturday 25 November 2000 20:22, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Roger Larsson wrote:
> > > _trylock functions return 0 for success.
> >
> > Not spin_trylock
>
> Argh, I missed the (recent ?) change to make x86 spinlocks use 1 to mean
> unlocked. You're correct, and obviously this should be fixed.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
If this are to change in 2.4 I would suggest
to renaming it to mutex_lock (as in Nigels preemptive kernel patch)
Why?
A) the name spin_lock describes how the function is implemented and not
the intended purpose.
B) with a preemptive kernel we will have more than four intended purposes:
1) SMP - spin_lock, prevent two processors to run currently
2) UP - not used, code can only be executed by one thread.
3) PREEMTIVE - lock a region for preemption to avoid concurrent execution.
4) debug - addition of debug checks.
With Nigels patch most are changed, with some additional stuff...
My suggestion, change the name to mutex_lock and negate let mutex_trylock
follow the example of other _trylocks (returning 0 for success).
Ok?
If it is ok, I can prepare a patch (earliest monday)
/RogerL
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
