[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:0.071 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site