On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 11:17 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 09:51 +0800, Zhao Yakui wrote: > >> On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 11:16 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > >>> Instead of re-using semaphores for the mutex operation, I've > >>> added usage of the kernel mutex for the os mutex implementation. > >>> > >> What is the advantage that the kernel mutex is used for the ACPI mutex > >> implementation instead of using semaphore? > >> And it seems that too much ACPICA source code is touched. > > > > You get help from lockdep, and also our goal is to fully eradicate > > semaphore usage. > > Issue is that ACPICA is shared with other OS source code and to replace > a major interface like this would mean replacing it for everyone. It > might end up with ACPICA just reimplementing a semaphore like wrapper if > semaphores really go away, but I don't really see that coming anyways. For other OS's the "completion" interface would just be connected to the semaphore .. I could even remove my rename, but still connect ACPI "semaphores" to completions . Of course you can always attach the mutex interface to a semaphore, that's how it currently is in Linux ACPI. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
