| 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: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:59:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com> cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Florin Iucha <florin@...ha.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: "upping" a semaphore from interrupt context? On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > Whoa, hold on. But I've been explicitly mentioning *binary* > semaphores all along! > > Of course users who want / allow multiple tasks (but only upto a > specific maximum number, which is what counted semaphores are all > about) to be present in a given critical section simultaneously > would still want to use the _counted_ semaphores, which is why you > won't see the old "struct semaphores" dying anytime soon. ah, ok, i've been misreading all this, sorry. i'm wondering, then, if, given both mutexes and completions, whether the general semantics of semaphores can be tightened up at all. just curious. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - 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