Sorry for CCing you instead of the mailing list! On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > On 04/18/2018 05:18 PM, Ricardo Biehl Pasquali wrote: > > > Also, the whole "semaphore description" paragraph could be > > rewritten. A proposal as an example: > > > > Semaphore is a counter of its pending wakeups. A call to > > sem_wait() consumes one wakeup (decrements counter). If > > there is no wakeup to be consumed (counter equals zero) > > sem_wait() blocks. sem_post() adds one wakeup (increments > > counter). > > > > or something like: > > > > A semaphore is represented by an integer that stores the > > number of semaphore's pending wakeups (i.e., the number > > of calls to sem_wait() that won't block). [...] > > FWIW, I find the above less clear than the existing text. > But, I did write that text. I'm open to more opinions on > the subject, but I'm not (so far) inclined to change the > text. Thanks for listening! "But, I did write that text." -- that's valid to me too :-) I've actually read the "semaphore description" paragraph again and it seems clearer to me now. I guess what confused me was the first sentence, which actually informs a property of the value representing the semaphore as its definition: A semaphore is ... a value that cannot be less than zero. Cheers! pasquali -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
