On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > yes, but you should not. The use of semaphores is not
> > > recommended for new code, it should be replaced with either a
> > > mutex or a completion.
> >
> > can you clarify this? it sounds like you're saying that the
> > current implementation of semaphores is entirely superfluous. but
> > surely it isn't possible to replace all semaphores with either
> > mutexes or completions, is it?
>
> No, not all of them, but the vast majority. There are multiple
> differences, the most important one being the 'counting' in
> semaphores.
right, that was exactly the feature i was thinking of. ok, i'm clear
on this now -- while the *majority* of semaphores can be more properly
replaced by mutexes or completions, there will always be a need for a
general-purpose counting semaphore.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
