[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AC9FCA6.8060203@anirban.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:03:18 -0700
From: Anirban Sinha <ani@...rban.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@...gmasystems.com>,
Anirban Sinha <asinha@...gmasystems.com>
Subject: Re: futex question
Once upon a time, like on 09-10-05 6:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Can you please fix your mail client to do proper line breaks at around
> 78 chars ?
Hmm. I made that change deliberately according to instructions in
Documentation/email-clients.txt so that it does not break my patches :) Anyway,
back to previous setting.
>>
>> We need to clear those pointers regardless. After the exceve(), the
>> address values are meaningless under the new mm context.
>
> That's out of question. We just need to come to a decision whether we
> silently clean up callers dumbness or not.
Correct me if I am wrong, but according to Ingo:
> So i think exec() should release all existing state, unless told
> otherwise. Making it behave differently for robust futexes sounds
> assymetric to me.
I thought clearing the head pointers was a part of the stale existing state?
--
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