On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 15:57 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hi Ingo, all,
>
> Noticed (via LWN, hence the delay) your robust futex work. Have you
> considered the less-perfect, but simpler option of simply having futex
> calls which tell the kernel that the u32 value is in fact the holder's
> TID?
>
> In this case, you don't get perfect robustness when TID wrap occurs:
> the kernel won't know that the lock holder is dead. However, it's
> simple, and telling the kernel that the lock is the tid allows the
> kernel to do prio inheritence etc. in future.
I think this was Todd Kneisel's approach . His version was vma
scanning, which is what Ingo is trying to replace. It just used the
current u32 value .
Daniel
-
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]
