On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Whoa, hold on. But I've been explicitly mentioning *binary*
> semaphores all along!
>
> Of course users who want / allow multiple tasks (but only upto a
> specific maximum number, which is what counted semaphores are all
> about) to be present in a given critical section simultaneously
> would still want to use the _counted_ semaphores, which is why you
> won't see the old "struct semaphores" dying anytime soon.
ah, ok, i've been misreading all this, sorry. i'm wondering, then,
if, given both mutexes and completions, whether the general semantics
of semaphores can be tightened up at all. just curious.
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]
