Daniel Rodrick wrote: > I may be wrong, but from what I understand, the count passed in the > semaphore initialization > > sema_init(sem, count); > > is the number of threads that are allowed to hold the semaphore > simultaneously (no of threads that are allowed to enter their critical > sections simultaneously). So can't a semaphore be actually held > recursively? Semaphores are not "held". See below. > Also, the only difference I could find between a semaphore and mutes > is that a mutex is a specail and most common form of semaphore where > only one thread can get it at a time. Are there any other differences? The difference is that a semaphore has no owner. Neither semaphores nor mutexes are a "special form" of the other - they are fundamentally distinct mechanisms. ~chill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
