Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:16:33 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | 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@infradead.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
| |