>From: Daniel Walker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 13:29, Esben Nielsen wrote: > >> So no, you will not need the same API, at all :-) Fusyn manipulates >> task->static_prio and only task->prio when no RT lock is taken. When the >> first RT-lock is taken/released it manipulates task->prio only. A release >> of a Fusyn will manipulate task->static_prio as well as task->prio. > >mutex_setprio() , I don't know if you could call that an API but that's >what I was talking about.. They should both use that. I think it would >be better if the RT mutex (and fusyn) didn't depend on a field in the >task_struct to retain the old priority. That would make it easier .. > >This goes back to the assumption that the locking isn't intermingled >once you get into the kernel . The RT mutex can safely save the owner >priority with out a Fusyn jumping in and changing it and the other way >around..
You should not need any of this if your user space mutexes are a wrapper over the kernel space ones. The kernel handles everything the same and there is no need to take care of any special cases or variations [other than the ones imposed by the wrapping]. -- Inaky - 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/
