WARNING: mutexes are preferred for single holder semaphores
michael at ellerman.id.au
Mon May 5 11:06:55 EST 2008
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
> The code declares a global mutex:
> static DECLARE_MUTEX(list_lock);
.. which is a semaphore :( [see include/linux/semaphore.h]
I think you want DEFINE_MUTEX().
Yes, this is completely ridiculous.
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Linuxppc-dev