![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > This patch illustrates an alternative approach to waking and waiting on > daemons using semaphores instead of direct operations on wait queues. > The idea of using semaphores to regulate the cycling of a daemon was > suggested to me by Arjan Vos. The basic idea is simple: on each cycle > a daemon down's a semaphore, and is reactivated when some other task > up's the semaphore. > Is this better, worse, or lateral? This is much better, especially from a maintainability point of view. It is also the method that a lot of operating systems already use. Nigel Gamble nigel@nrg.org Mountain View, CA, USA. http://www.nrg.org/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||