On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:55:02 +0100 torbenh <torbenh@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:34:48AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:58:13PM +0100, Torben Hohn wrote: > > > the -rt patches change the console_semaphore to console_mutex. > > > so a quite large chunk of the patches changes all > > > acquire/release_console_sem() to acquire/release_console_mutex() > > > > Why not just change the functionality of the existing function to be a > > mutex in the rt patches, instead of having to rename it everywhere? > > i hope that Thomas already did this in his upcoming -rt series. > > > > > > this commit makes things use more neutral function names > > > which dont make implications about the underlying lock. > > > > > > the only real change is the return value of console_trylock > > > which is inverted from try_acquire_console_sem() > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Torben Hohn <torbenh@xxxxxx> > > > CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxx> > > > > I don't mind this rename, but is it really going to help anything out? > > What's the odds of the -rt portion of this patch ever making it to > > mainline? > > the -rt portion only changes the semaphore to a mutex. > since the console_sem is used with mutex semantics, i dont see any > reason, not to merge that portion too. > > i am just trying to shrink the -rt patch to make it more maintanable :) > Yeah, I think it's a better name and if we can indeed switch that semaphore to a mutex then that's a good thing to do. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
