In some email I received from Simon J. Gerraty, sie wrote:
> > How about adding:
> > 
> > #define	sema_v(x)	sema_signal(x)
> > #define	sema_p(x)	sema_spinwait(x)
> > #define	sema_p_wait(x)	sema_wait(x)
> > 
> > just to make it easier...
> 
> Would that make it easier or just cause confusion?

So long as you have sema_v(), sema_p() and sema_p_wait() as being
able to be found with "man -k semaphore", I think not.  Texts which
talk about semaphores and sample code will generally have a p() and
a v().  When you're writing code, looking at other examples which
use p() and v(), it is incredibly helpful to not have to think
which ones are right for here.

Darren