[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: "upping" a semaphore from interrupt context?
    On Saturday 23 June 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
    > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > >
    > > yes, but you should not. The use of semaphores is not recommended
    > > for new code, it should be replaced with either a mutex or a
    > > completion.
    > can you clarify this?  it sounds like you're saying that the current
    > implementation of semaphores is entirely superfluous.  but surely it
    > isn't possible to replace all semaphores with either mutexes or
    > completions, is it?

    No, not all of them, but the vast majority. There are multiple
    differences, the most important one being the 'counting' in
    semaphores. You can e.g. define a semaphore that can be held
    by N users at the same time, but not more. In a mutex, N is
    by definition 1, so only one thread can hold a mutex.

    There are other subtle differences in the implementation, e.g.
    you cannot mutex_trylock at interrupt time.

    Arnd <><
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-23 14:05    [W:0.033 / U:6.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site