Jan Kiszka wrote: > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok. Though I do not see the point of the FASTSEM/FASTSYNCH rename. >>>> FASTSEM is short, and we are not much interested in getting anything >>>> else than semaphores faster. >>> We aren't optimizing semaphores (at least not yet), we are optimizing >>> mutexes only. And if we ever optimize also semaphores, FASTSYNCH will >>> luckily still fit. :) >> The name was chosen because we plan to optimize semaphores as well, and >> because mutexes are simply a special kind of semaphores, so, by saying >> FASTSEM, we cover semaphores as well as mutexes. > > That depends on how you define both - most semaphore definitions do not > include the ownership concept, thus are not a superclass of > (owner-tracking) mutexes we consider here.
>From my point of view, a mutex is a semaphore. If we imagine it in simple OOP terms, the mutex class inherit from the semaphore class. Yes, it has an owner member which the semaphore has not, but it still is a semaphore. -- Gilles. _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomaifirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core