Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:00:26 -0500 | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: [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 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/
| |