[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Lightweight userspace semaphores...
    On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:24:22PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
    > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:53:11AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
    > > As stated above, I allocate a kernel object <kulock_t> on demand and
    > > hash it. This way I don't have to pin any user address. What does everybody
    > > think about the merit of this approach versus the pinning approach?
    > [...]
    > > In your case, can the lock be allocated at different
    > > virtual addresses in the various address spaces.
    > I think this is a relatively important feature. It may not be
    > possible to use the same virtual address in different processes.
    > r~

    I think so too. However let me point that Linus's initial recommendation
    of a handle, comprised of a kernel pointer and a signature also has
    that property.
    Just pointing out the merits of the various approaches.

    -- Hubertus

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:5.069 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site