On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Hi Robert, Arnd,
>
> On 6/23/07, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> 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?
>
> Semaphores being used as completions are superfluous, obsoleted by
> completion handlers. Semaphores that are not counted (hence binary)
> are superfluous, obsoleted by struct mutex.
hang on, how is that true? as i read it, mutexes are more than just
binary semaphores -- they have additional restrictions that regular
semaphores don't. so i'm not convinced that binary semaphores can
simply be replaced by mutexes, unless that's not what you meant here.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
