[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Futexes IV (Fast Lightweight Userspace Semaphores)
Followup to:  <>
By author: Linus Torvalds <>
In newsgroup:
> You don't understand. This has nothing to do with lock holders, or
> anything else.
> I'm saying that we map in a page at a magic offset (just above the stack),
> and that page contains the locking code.
> For 386 CPU's (where only UP matters), we can trivially come up with a
> lock that doesn't use cmpxchg8b and that isn't SMP-safe. It might even go
> into the kernel every time if it has to - ie it _works_, it just isn't
> optimal.

Okay, I'll say it and be impopular...

Perhaps it's time to drop i386 support?

It seems to me that the i386 support has been around mostly on a
"until we have a reason to do otherwise" basis, but perhaps this is
the reason?

There certainly are enough little, nagging reasons... CMPXCHG, BSWAP,
and especially WP...

<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." <>
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 13:24    [W:0.074 / U:2.872 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site