Quoting Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>:

quoted text
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 02:49:22PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> the things which it finds.
>>
>> > +static DECLARE_MUTEX(kmmio_init_mutex);
>>
>> That's not a mutex.
>>
>> > +	down(&kmmio_init_mutex);
>>
>> It's a semaphore.  Please do convert it to a mutex.
>>
>> Andy, I'd say that addition of new semaphores is worth a warning - they're
>> rarely legitimate.
>
> I'm not sure that any semaphore should be a warning, but the initializer
> for semaphore used as binary mutex (DECLARE_MUTEX and init_MUTEX) are
> worth it.

It looks like a mutex, it acts like a mutex, but it isn't a mutex,  
it's a trap for the unwary.  Weird.  I was annoyed by it before; now I  
see a fellow developer actually getting into that trap.

I'd say, rename DECLARE_MUTEX to DECLARE_SEMAPHORE and let external  
code be fixed one way or another (i.e. stick with the "mutex" name or  
stick with the semaphore functionality if it's really needed).

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/