On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@codeaurora.org> wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:42 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 28 December 2010 16:51:30 Daniel Walker wrote:
>> >> We for sure don't want new semaphores, or new semaphore usage in the
>> >> kernel ..
>>
>> Would you please, Daniel, explain why there are so my file systems under
>> the fs directory? Would you think the ext file system is better than others?
>>
>> And why there are in kernel spin lock, read/write lock, mutex, rw_mutex,
>> rtmutx, and semaphore, timer and hrtimer?
>>
>> Could timer be removed tonight?
>
> The problem with semaphores is that people use them in ways that are not
> very nice, and not very efficient.. Since they are so flexible they can
> be used in all sorts of ways, many of which are not clean. This is why,
> if you read the kernel history, most semaphore have been removed from
> the kernel and replaced with much nicer and cleaner mutexes.
>
> Daniel

Thanks for sharing the knowledge about rtmutx and semaphore.
Hillf
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/