Am Dienstag, 9. Januar 2007 10:02 schrieb Peter Zijlstra: > On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 13:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Please use mutexes where possible. Semaphores should only be used when > > their counting feature is employed. And, arguably, in situations where a > > lock is locked and unlocked from different threads, because this presently > > triggers mutex debugging warnings, although we should find a way of fixing > > this in the mutex code. > > Its a fundamental property of a mutex, not a shortcoming. A mutex has an > owner, the one that takes and releases the resource. This allows things > such as Priority Inheritance to boost owners. > > 'fixing' this takes away much of what a mutex is. > > That said, it seems some folks really want this to happen, weird as it > may be. I'm not sure if all these cases are because of wrong designs. A > possible extension to the mutex interface might be something like this: > > mutex_pass_owner(struct task_struct *task); > > which would be an atomic unlock/lock pair where the current task > releases the resource and the indicated task gains it. However it must > be understood that from the POV of 'current' this should be treated as > an unlock action.
This won't help if I want to release from an interrupt handler or tasklet. Regards Oliver - 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/