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    [W:0.028 / U:305.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site