lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Change in functionality of futex() system call.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:11:38PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 10:53 -0700, Darren Hart a écrit :
> >
>
> > If I understand the problem correctly, RO private mapping really doesn't
> > make any sense and we should probably explicitly not support it, while
> > special casing the RO shared mapping in support of David's scenario.
> >
>
> We supported them in 2.6.18 kernels, apparently. This might sounds
> stupid but who knows ?

Trying to come up with a strawman for this sort of operation.
What about a process that creates a private mapping and then creates
threads with CLONE_VM? Would we CoW in that case?

Joel

--

Pitchers and catchers report.

http://www.jlbec.org/
jlbec@evilplan.org
--
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: 2011-06-07 20:33    [W:0.171 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site