On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:06:10PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> This patch illustrates an alternative approach to waking and waiting on
> daemons using semaphores instead of direct operations on wait queues.
> The idea of using semaphores to regulate the cycling of a daemon was
> suggested to me by Arjan Vos. The basic idea is simple: on each cycle
> a daemon down's a semaphore, and is reactivated when some other task
> up's the semaphore.
[...]
>
> OK, there it is. Is this better, worse, or lateral?
Well, I have to confess I'm rather fond of this method, but that could have
something to do with it being how we did it in DYNIX/ptx (Sequent).
It certainly works, and I find it very clear, but of course I'm biased :-)
Tim
--
Tim Wright - [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Nobody ever said I was charming, they said "Rimmer, you're a git!"" RD VI
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
