Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores

[Roland Dreier]

 > which ones exactly are these places that demand the use of a counting 
 > semaphore? I cannot think of a single place where it's the best choice, 
 > let alone one where it's the only choice.

Two of the places that use semaphores are drivers/infiniband/hw/mthca
and drivers/net/mlx4 -- in both cases, the device firmware allows up to
"N" outstanding firmware commands to be in flight, and the driver uses a
semaphore to handle issuing firmware commands.  That is, down() when we
want to issue a command, and up() when the firmware responds that the
command is complete.

What would you suggest as a better way to code this?  This is an honest
question -- there probably is a more elegant way to handle this
situation and I really would like to learn about it.

Also, the argument that removing semaphores makes the kernel as a whole
better does make sense to me; I wouldn't be opposed to basically
open-coding semaphores in terms of wait_event() in the driver or
something like that, but I wouldn't say that such an implementation is
locally more readable or maintainable if we look only at the driver
code.

 - R.
--
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/