[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091105143959.2093.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:42:23 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Fulton <fultonm@...ibm.com>,
Sean Foley <Sean_Foley@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Add prctl to set sibling thread names
> KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >>
> >>> John, I'd prefer to suggested another design.
> >>> How about this?
> >>>
> >>> 1. remove pid argument from prctl
> >>> 2. cancel pthread_setname_np()
> >>> 3. instead, create pthread_attr_setname_np()
> >>> 4. pthread_create() change own thread name by pthread_attr.
> >>>
> >>> It avoid many racy problem automatically.
> >> Perhaps, but it also greatly reduces the flexibility of the
> >> implementation by restricting name changes to create time.
> >
> > Hm.
> > if your program really need to change another thread name, can you please tell us
> > why it is necessary and when it is used?
>
> I think John's previous mails covered that pretty well. As for doing the
> name change at create time, or sometime later, it just seems to me that
> the flexibility of doing so later is worth having. While I know we don't
> have to follow other systems implementations, in this case
> pthread_setname_np() seems a reasonable model to follow to me.
You only said your mode is more flexible. but I want to know _why_ this flexibiliby is
necessay. please tell us concrete use-case.
--
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