Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores

[Andi Kleen]

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Yeah, I would open code it.  But this is indeed a sane usage of the
> counting semaphore because there is no priority inversion.

But when you open code that, how is it different from just having
semaphores? 

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/