Merge branch 'linus' into x86/x2apic

Conflicts:

	drivers/pci/dmar.c

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

1 files changed, 24 insertions, 33 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
index 2510763295d0..084f6ad7b7a0 100644
--- a/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
+++ b/Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl
@@ -219,10 +219,10 @@
    </para>
 
    <sect1 id="lock-intro">
-   <title>Three Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks, Mutexes and Semaphores</title>
+   <title>Two Main Types of Kernel Locks: Spinlocks and Mutexes</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 
@@ -240,14 +240,6 @@
      use a spinlock instead.
    </para>
    <para>
-     The third type is a semaphore
-     (<filename class="headerfile">include/linux/semaphore.h</filename>): it
-     can have more than one holder at any time (the number decided at
-     initialization time), although it is most commonly used as a
-     single-holder lock (a mutex).  If you can't get a semaphore, your
-     task will be suspended and later on woken up - just like for mutexes.
-   </para>
-   <para>
      Neither type of lock is recursive: see
      <xref linkend="deadlock"/>.
    </para>
@@ -278,7 +270,7 @@
     </para>
 
     <para>
-      Semaphores still exist, because they are required for
+      Mutexes still exist, because they are required for
       synchronization between <firstterm linkend="gloss-usercontext">user 
       contexts</firstterm>, as we will see below.
     </para>
@@ -289,18 +281,17 @@
 
      <para>
        If you have a data structure which is only ever accessed from
-       user context, then you can use a simple semaphore
-       (<filename>linux/linux/semaphore.h</filename>) to protect it.  This
-       is the most trivial case: you initialize the semaphore to the number 
-       of resources available (usually 1), and call
-       <function>down_interruptible()</function> to grab the semaphore, and 
-       <function>up()</function> to release it.  There is also a 
-       <function>down()</function>, which should be avoided, because it 
+       user context, then you can use a simple mutex
+       (<filename>include/linux/mutex.h</filename>) to protect it.  This
+       is the most trivial case: you initialize the mutex.  Then you can
+       call <function>mutex_lock_interruptible()</function> to grab the mutex,
+       and <function>mutex_unlock()</function> to release it.  There is also a 
+       <function>mutex_lock()</function>, which should be avoided, because it 
        will not return if a signal is received.
      </para>
 
      <para>
-       Example: <filename>linux/net/core/netfilter.c</filename> allows 
+       Example: <filename>net/netfilter/nf_sockopt.c</filename> allows 
        registration of new <function>setsockopt()</function> and 
        <function>getsockopt()</function> calls, with
        <function>nf_register_sockopt()</function>.  Registration and 
@@ -515,7 +506,7 @@
       <listitem>
 	<para>
           If you are in a process context (any syscall) and want to
-	lock other process out, use a semaphore.  You can take a semaphore
+	lock other process out, use a mutex.  You can take a mutex
 	and sleep (<function>copy_from_user*(</function> or
 	<function>kmalloc(x,GFP_KERNEL)</function>).
       </para>
@@ -662,7 +653,7 @@
 <entry>SLBH</entry>
 <entry>SLBH</entry>
 <entry>SLBH</entry>
-<entry>DI</entry>
+<entry>MLI</entry>
 <entry>None</entry>
 </row>
 
@@ -692,8 +683,8 @@
 <entry>spin_lock_bh</entry>
 </row>
 <row>
-<entry>DI</entry>
-<entry>down_interruptible</entry>
+<entry>MLI</entry>
+<entry>mutex_lock_interruptible</entry>
 </row>
 
 </tbody>
@@ -1310,7 +1301,7 @@ as Alan Cox says, <quote>Lock data, not code</quote>.
     <para>
       There is a coding bug where a piece of code tries to grab a
       spinlock twice: it will spin forever, waiting for the lock to
-      be released (spinlocks, rwlocks and semaphores are not
+      be released (spinlocks, rwlocks and mutexes are not
       recursive in Linux).  This is trivial to diagnose: not a
       stay-up-five-nights-talk-to-fluffy-code-bunnies kind of
       problem.
@@ -1335,7 +1326,7 @@ as Alan Cox says, <quote>Lock data, not code</quote>.
 
     <para>
       This complete lockup is easy to diagnose: on SMP boxes the
-      watchdog timer or compiling with <symbol>DEBUG_SPINLOCKS</symbol> set
+      watchdog timer or compiling with <symbol>DEBUG_SPINLOCK</symbol> set
       (<filename>include/linux/spinlock.h</filename>) will show this up 
       immediately when it happens.
     </para>
@@ -1558,7 +1549,7 @@ the amount of locking which needs to be done.
    <title>Read/Write Lock Variants</title>
 
    <para>
-      Both spinlocks and semaphores have read/write variants:
+      Both spinlocks and mutexes have read/write variants:
       <type>rwlock_t</type> and <structname>struct rw_semaphore</structname>.
       These divide users into two classes: the readers and the writers.  If
       you are only reading the data, you can get a read lock, but to write to
@@ -1681,7 +1672,7 @@ the amount of locking which needs to be done.
  #include &lt;linux/slab.h&gt;
  #include &lt;linux/string.h&gt;
 +#include &lt;linux/rcupdate.h&gt;
- #include &lt;linux/semaphore.h&gt;
+ #include &lt;linux/mutex.h&gt;
  #include &lt;asm/errno.h&gt;
 
  struct object
@@ -1913,7 +1904,7 @@ machines due to caching.
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
         <para>
-          <function> put_user()</function>
+          <function>put_user()</function>
         </para>
        </listitem>
       </itemizedlist>
@@ -1927,13 +1918,13 @@ machines due to caching.
 
      <listitem>
       <para>
-      <function>down_interruptible()</function> and
-      <function>down()</function>
+      <function>mutex_lock_interruptible()</function> and
+      <function>mutex_lock()</function>
       </para>
       <para>
-       There is a <function>down_trylock()</function> which can be
+       There is a <function>mutex_trylock()</function> which can be
        used inside interrupt context, as it will not sleep.
-       <function>up()</function> will also never sleep.
+       <function>mutex_unlock()</function> will also never sleep.
       </para>
      </listitem>
     </itemizedlist>
@@ -2023,7 +2014,7 @@ machines due to caching.
       <para>
         Prior to 2.5, or when <symbol>CONFIG_PREEMPT</symbol> is
         unset, processes in user context inside the kernel would not
-        preempt each other (ie. you had that CPU until you have it up,
+        preempt each other (ie. you had that CPU until you gave it up,
         except for interrupts).  With the addition of
         <symbol>CONFIG_PREEMPT</symbol> in 2.5.4, this changed: when
         in user context, higher priority tasks can "cut in": spinlocks