lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8

* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> > > This is used to wait for command completion and therefor we have the
> > > completion API. It was used this way because the ancestor of completion
> > > (sleep_on) was racy !
> >
> > I didn't look at the USB code, I'm just saying that it's perfectly valid
> > use of a semaphore the pattern you describe (process A holding it,
> > process B releasing it).
>
> Yeah, for a semaphore it is, but not for a mutex.

but mutexes dont exist in upstream Linux as a separate entity. (they
exist in my tree but that's another ballgame.)

> IMHO, this is not clearly seperated and therefor produces a lot of
> confusion.

if used to complete some work then semaphores are indeed a tad unclean
and slightly slower than completions - but they are fully correct kernel
code. And there are much worse offenders of cleanliness around.

Ingo
-
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: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.812 / U:28.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site