Daniel Walker 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.
In general you would want to use a mutex whenever your using mutex-like
semantics. If I see a mutex used in code then I have a pretty good idea
the locking is sane..
With a mutex the locking can be totally broken and with a semaphore the
locking can be completely fine. They are both just tools which can be
used correctly and also incorrectly.
The main advantage of mutexes is that they can be slightly more
efficient (doesn't matter for the ACPI case, the ACPI interpreter is not
performance critical) and that they are easier to check with lockdep.
But there are also other considerations like in ACPICA's case portability.
My feeling is that adding own semaphore wrappers to ACPICA wouldn't
be an improvement. Defering to Bob Moore for his opinion, since
he maintains ACPICA.
-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
