lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fast Userspace Mutexes III.
Date
On Monday 04 March 2002 11:48 pm, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:48:48 -0500
>
> Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Also, the check on PROT_SEM is missing. I tried this before and glibc
> > filtered these flags out when set. But effectively, one still needs to
> > check whether semaphores are allowed during the sys_futex call.
>
> Neither arch I care about (ppc, x86) needs to do anything with PROT_SEM, so
> it's OK. glibc will have to be fixed on any architectures which require
> help here, and a hook will be needed somewhere in the kernel for them.
>
> I didn't implement it because I don't *know* which archs will need
> something, and what they will need. Hence my request for arch maintainers
> to step forward (Linus said they exist, and I believe him).
>
> Hope that clarifies this particular wart...
> Rusty.

Clarifies only partially.

I agree to put it there if its not used as a means to define whether
user locks are permitted or not. If that is the intention, then the current
futex will need to check every access through find_vma(), which we
both know nobody wants to do.

So it can only be used for architectural hints, agreed ?

--
-- Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans