![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 03:22 +0800, Dong Feng wrote: > Why can't we have a hardware-independent semaphore definition while we > have already had hardware-dependent spinlock, rwlock, and rcu lock? It > seems the semaphore definitions classified into two major categories. > The main deference is whether there is a member variable _sleeper_. btw semaphores are a deprecated construct mostly; mutexes are the way to go for new code if they fit the usage model of mutexes. And mutexes are indeed generic (with a architecture hook to allow a specific operation to be optimized using assembly) - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-28 07:33 [W:1.044 / U:0.170 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||