![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:06:10PM +0100, 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. [...] > > OK, there it is. Is this better, worse, or lateral? Well, I have to confess I'm rather fond of this method, but that could have something to do with it being how we did it in DYNIX/ptx (Sequent). It certainly works, and I find it very clear, but of course I'm biased :-) Tim -- Tim Wright - timw@splhi.com or timw@aracnet.com or twright@us.ibm.com "Nobody ever said I was charming, they said "Rimmer, you're a git!"" RD VI - 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 | |||||||||||||