Re: [DOC PATCH] Remove mention of semaphores from kernel-locking

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

On Tuesday 22 April 2008 00:52:30 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Since the consensus seems to be to eliminate semaphores where possible,
> we shouldn't be educating people about how to use them as locks.

Agreed.

> Use 
> mutexes instead.  Semaphores should be described in a separate document
> if we end up keeping them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
>
> (I'll put this patch in the semaphore git tree tomorrow unless I hear
> complaints.)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
> b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl index 435413c..e1f4655 100644
> --- a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
> +++ b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
>     <title>Three Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks, Mutexes and
> Semaphores</title>
>
>     <para>
> -     There are three main types of kernel locks.  The fundamental type
> +     There are two main types of kernel locks.  The fundamental type
>       is the spinlock
>       (<filename class="headerfile">include/asm/spinlock.h</filename>),
>       which is a very simple single-holder lock: if you can't get the

Fix title, too?

Thanks for the other fixes too; this document needs some love,

Acked,
Rusty.