Peter Zijlstra wrote:
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.
Andi, you know better than that.
Know better than what?
My understanding was that there are a few areas
in the kernel who really use true semaphore semantics and I don't see it
as particularly useful to force them to use something else that doesn't
fit them as well. And there are areas like ACPICA where semaphores are
an useful abstraction because of other consideration (in ACPICA's case
due to portability).
Especially now that semaphores are not duplicated per architecture
anymore so actually keeping them around is not that costly. Yes they are
incompatible to lockdep, but lockdep support is only one consideration
among others and not the master of all code.
Especially adding own semaphore wrappers to some code like ACPICA
when there are already perfectly usable generic semaphores wouldn't
strike me as an improvement and that ugliness of that would IMHO far
outweight the benefit of lockdep support.
-Andi
--
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
