linux-kernel - Re: 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1156750249.3034.155.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:30:49 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Dong Feng <middle.fengdong@...il.com>
Cc:	ak@...e.de, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why Semaphore Hardware-Dependent?

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 03:22 +0800, Dong Feng wrote:
> 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_.

btw semaphores are a deprecated construct mostly; mutexes are the way to
go for new code if they fit the usage model of mutexes. And mutexes are
indeed generic (with a architecture hook to allow a specific operation
to be optimized using assembly)


-
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/