[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