From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:48:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] using "mutexes" in place of semaphores Message-Id: <200702171948.52018.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 17 February 2007 17:39, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > waitaminnit. =A0you're not claiming that a currently-locked semaphore is > exactly equivalent to a completion, are you? >=20 > as i read it, calling "complete()" on a completion will wake *all* > processes waiting for that completion, no? =A0not just one, as a > semaphore would. >=20 > so i'm assuming what you're saying is that, in many places where you > see a "sema_init(sem, 0)", it would be *appropriate* to have used a > completion instead, is that what you meant? =A0thanks. >=20 Right, I looked at three instances where sema_init(sem, 0) was used, and two of them use it only to do what a completion does. Arnd <>< _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors