| 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: <4803AD91.5020001@firstfloor.org> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:16:33 +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 wrote: > 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. > But then you end up with lots of likely subtly buggy open coded implementations. Also not good. For me it sounds like you just want to rename semaphores to some other name that people don't use them for normal locking? -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