>>>>> Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 16:37 -0700, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> I have to agree with Inaky too. Fundamentally, PI is the same for
> the system regardless of if the locks are user or kernel. I still
> don't see the difference here. But for other reasons, I feel that
> the user lock should be a different structure from the kernel
> lock. That's why I mentioned that it would be a good idea if Ingo
> modulized the PI portion. So that part would be the same for
> both. If he doesn't have the time to do it, I'll do it :-) (Ingo,
> all you need to do is ask.)
Can you qualify "different" here? I don't mean that they need to be
interchangeable, but that they are esentially the same. Obviously the
user cannot acces the kernel locks, but kernel locks are *used* to
implement user space locks.
Back to my example before: in fusyn, a user space lock is a kernel
space lock with a wrapper, that provides all that is necessary for
doing the fast path and handling user-space specific issues.
>> As long as the concept of rwlock allows for it to have multiple
>> owners (read locks need to have them), the procedure is mostly the
>> same. However, this not being POSIX, nobody (yet) has asked for it.
>
> I don't think rwlocks work well with PI. You can implement it, but
> it's like implementing multiple inheritance for Object Oriented
> languages...
I have to agree--that's why I don't go further than saying in theory
is possible. I would only touch it with a ten foot pole or if someone
offered a lot in exchange :]
--
Inaky
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
