| 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: 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists