[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4651E992.9080205@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:48:50 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: second, bigger problem with private futexes
Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Do you mean POSIX allowed to mix PROCESS_PRIVATE and PROCESS_SHARED
>> condvar and mutexes ? Seems silly to me :(
>
> Don't judge what you don't understand.
Yes, I kindly apologise for this crime.
> If all waiters are always in one
> process but the notifiers can be in different processes, this setup
> might make a lot of sense.
Thanks for providing this information.
I assume in this case the condvar is PSHARED, while mutex could be/is PRIVATE ?
I wonder how old (assuming all shared) code could work, since the notifier
would call FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE giving a target address outside of this process vm ?
My understanding (probably bad, since I know nothing about POSIX as you mentioned)
- Old code could not use FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE if mutex was private.
-> Old code was using a normal FUTEX_WAKE in this case.
So I repeat my question : Should we really add yer another futex command in
kernel for a corner case ?
Thanks
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists