* David Singleton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ingo,
> here is a patch that provides the correct locking for the rt_mutex
> backing the robust pthread_mutex. The patch also unifies the locking
> for all the robust functions and adds support for pthread_mutexes on
> the heap.
thanks. Could you split up the patch into a fix and a 'heap' patch (at a
minimum)?
it's this portion of the 'heap' patch that looks problematic:
> --- base/linux-2.6.14/include/linux/mm.h 2005-11-18 20:36:53.000000000 -0800
> +++ wip/linux-2.6.14/include/linux/mm.h 2005-11-21 10:51:19.000000000 -0800
> @@ -109,6 +109,11 @@
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> struct mempolicy *vm_policy; /* NUMA policy for the VMA */
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUTEX
> + int robust_init; /* robust initialized? */
> + struct list_head robust_list; /* list of robust futexes in this vma */
> + struct semaphore robust_sem; /* semaphore to protect the list */
> +#endif
> };
why is there per-vma info needed?
Also, what testing did this patch have - should it solve Dinakar's
problem(s)?
Ingo
-
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]
