Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:30:45 -0700 | From | Joel Becker <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |