On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > Hi Robert, Arnd, > > On 6/23/07, Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? > > Semaphores being used as completions are superfluous, obsoleted by > completion handlers. Semaphores that are not counted (hence binary) > are superfluous, obsoleted by struct mutex.
hang on, how is that true? as i read it, mutexes are more than just binary semaphores -- they have additional restrictions that regular semaphores don't. so i'm not convinced that binary semaphores can simply be replaced by mutexes, unless that's not what you meant here. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
