linux-kernel - Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a2ebde260608271222x2b51693fnaa600965fcfaa6d2@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:22:15 +0800
From:	"Dong Feng" <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
To:	ak@...e.de, "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

Why can't we have a hardware-independent semaphore definition while we
have already had hardware-dependent spinlock, rwlock, and rcu lock? It
seems the semaphore definitions classified into two major categories.
The main deference is whether there is a member variable _sleeper_.
Does this (optional) member indicate any hardware family gene?

Best Regards.
Feng,Dong
-
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/