[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d4osuy6r.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:46:20 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>
> Yeah, I would open code it. But this is indeed a sane usage of the
> counting semaphore because there is no priority inversion.
But when you open code that, how is it different from just having
semaphores?
-Andi
--
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