On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:Exactly. But the point here is: - nobody should use semaphores anyway (use mutexes) - making *more* code use semaphores is wrong - completions have a different _mental_ model IOW, this is not about implementation issues. It's about how you think about the operations. We should _not_ implement completions as semaphores, simply because we want to get *rid* of semaphores some day. So rather than this long and involved patch series that first makes semaphores generic, and then makes them be used as completions, I'd much rather just skip this whole pointless exercise entirely. Why have "generic semaphores" at all, if we want to get rid of them? Linus --
| Davide Libenzi | [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 018/196] coda: convert struct class_device to struct device |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| David Newall | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
git: | |
| Christoph Lameter | Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
