[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1208195673.7164.2.camel@twins>
Date:	Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:54:33 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.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
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 19:46 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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? 
Because we can then eventually get rid of semaphores, so those people
cannot mistakenly use them. Its just too easy to create prio inversion
with them around.
--
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
 
