Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:13:59 +0100 | From | Antonio Vargas <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1 |
| |
On 2/15/06, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote: > On Wednesday 15 February 2006 20:49, Christopher Friesen wrote: > > > The goal is for the kernel to unlock the mutex, but the next task to > > aquire it gets some special notification that the status is unknown. At > > that point the task can either validate/clean up the data and reset the > > mutex to clean (if it can) or it can give up the mutex and pass it on to > > some other task that does know how to validate/clean up. > > The "send signal when any mapper dies" proposal would do that. The other process > could catch the signal and do something with it. >
That would be a new signal such as SIG_FUTEXDIED, would it?
-- Greetz, Antonio Vargas aka winden of network
http://wind.codepixel.com/ windNOenSPAMntw@gmail.com thesameasabove@amigascne.org
Every day, every year you have to work you have to study you have to scene. - 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/
| |