[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 Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> 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.

right, that was exactly the feature i was thinking of. ok, i'm clear
on this now -- while the *majority* of semaphores can be more properly
replaced by mutexes or completions, there will always be a need for a
general-purpose counting semaphore.

Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-23 14:13    [W:0.069 / U:14.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site