On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> This patch illustrates an alternative approach to waking and waiting on
> daemons using semaphores instead of direct operations on wait queues.
> The idea of using semaphores to regulate the cycling of a daemon was
> suggested to me by Arjan Vos. The basic idea is simple: on each cycle
> a daemon down's a semaphore, and is reactivated when some other task
> up's the semaphore.
> Is this better, worse, or lateral?
This is much better, especially from a maintainability point of view.
It is also the method that a lot of operating systems already use.
Nigel Gamble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mountain View, CA, USA. http://www.nrg.org/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
