On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 08:56:58AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 07:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > The whole point of using a semaphore in the pagebuf is because there
> > > > is no tracking of who "owns" the lock so we can actually release it
> > > > in a different context. Semaphores were invented for this purpose,
> > > > and we use them in the way they were intended. ;)
> > >
> > > Where is the that semaphore spec, is that posix ? There is a new
> > > construct called "complete" that is good for this type of stuff too.
> > > No owner needed , just something running, and something waiting till
> > > it completes.
> >
> > wrt. posix, we dont really care about that for kernel-internal
> > primitives like struct semaphore. So whether it's posix or not has no
> > relevance.
>
> This reminds me of Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt . That no one
> should really be dependent on a particular kernel API doing a particular
> thing. The kernel is play dough for the kernel hacker (as it should be),
> including kernel semaphores.
>
> So we can change whatever we want, and make no excuses, as long as we
> fix the rest of the kernel to work with our change. That seems pretty
> sensible , because Linux should be an evolution.
>
> Daniel
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
---end quoted text---
|