[Ksummit-2008-discuss] topic proposal

Matthew Wilcox matthew at wil.cx
Wed Aug 27 11:31:53 PDT 2008


On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:14:22AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > In name only.  Completions are identical to the new generic semaphore
> > code, just implemented slightly less efficiently.
> 
> completions are like semaphores that start out locked initially, so it's
> different in that way.. It's more strict than a semaphore.

How is it more strict?  Hint: you can complete() a completion more than
once, and the subsequent callers of wait_for_completion() won't actually
wait.

Oh, completions do have complete_all() which semaphores don't.  Not
really a big difference.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."


More information about the Ksummit-2008-discuss mailing list