Daniel Walker wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 00:17 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
Daniel Walker wrote:
The semaphore usage in ACPI is more like completions. The ASL
functions getting implemented here are signals which follow a
"wait for", signaled, or reset format.
This implements the ACPI signaling methods with the Linux
completion API, instead of using semaphores.
NACK. I don't see the point of emulating semaphores when
there are already perfectly fine semaphores available.
With semaphores as a super set, under that you have mutexes and
completions, and other un-classified usages.. Mutex usage is obviously
for mutual exclusion (semaphore initialized to 1), completions are used
for signaling (semaphore initialized to 0).
Let's put it differently: I just don't see how your change improves
the code. Replacing one locking primitive with another has no value
in itself that I can see unless it fixes something.
And when there is the choice I think it's cleaner and less confusing to use
semaphores when the ACPICA asks for semaphores instead of something else.
-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
