Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:08:38 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: RT and XFS |
| |
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:56:58AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 07:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > > > > > > The whole point of using a semaphore in the pagebuf is because there > > > > is no tracking of who "owns" the lock so we can actually release it > > > > in a different context. Semaphores were invented for this purpose, > > > > and we use them in the way they were intended. ;) > > > > > > Where is the that semaphore spec, is that posix ? There is a new > > > construct called "complete" that is good for this type of stuff too. > > > No owner needed , just something running, and something waiting till > > > it completes. > > > > wrt. posix, we dont really care about that for kernel-internal > > primitives like struct semaphore. So whether it's posix or not has no > > relevance. > > This reminds me of Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt . That no one > should really be dependent on a particular kernel API doing a particular > thing. The kernel is play dough for the kernel hacker (as it should be), > including kernel semaphores. > > So we can change whatever we want, and make no excuses, as long as we > fix the rest of the kernel to work with our change. That seems pretty > sensible , because Linux should be an evolution. > > Daniel > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ---end quoted text--- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |