| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:25:01 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: gregkh@...e.de Cc: hidave.darkstar@...il.com, greg@...ah.com, peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] Use mutex instead of semaphore in driver core From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:18:28 -0800 > But is the usage of this semaphore in the class code really a problem? > Has it been seen to cause issues anywhere? Does it show up on any > benchmarks as being something that really needs to be replaced? It's a question of maintainability and simplicity also Greg. I actually have no idea why you're making any sort of fuss about this. To me it's so clear cut that we should do that. Mutexes provide a much simpler locking technology. The things that semaphores can do that mutexes can't are rarely if ever used. Therefore it's better to convert all of those cases only using the simpler semantic set of mutexes from semaphores. And we've been converting the entire tree this way for about 2 years, I'm sorry that you've only just noticed that this is happening and that there is general agreement that in general all such conversions should be made. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists