| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706230804060.4666@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:06:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> cc: Florin Iucha <florin@...ha.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: "upping" a semaphore from interrupt context? On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Saturday 23 June 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > yes, but you should not. The use of semaphores is not > > > recommended for new code, it should be replaced with either a > > > mutex or a completion. > > > > can you clarify this? it sounds like you're saying that the > > current implementation of semaphores is entirely superfluous. but > > surely it isn't possible to replace all semaphores with either > > mutexes or completions, is it? > > No, not all of them, but the vast majority. There are multiple > differences, the most important one being the 'counting' in > semaphores. right, that was exactly the feature i was thinking of. ok, i'm clear on this now -- while the *majority* of semaphores can be more properly replaced by mutexes or completions, there will always be a need for a general-purpose counting semaphore. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ========================================================================
Powered by blists - more mailing lists