Re: second, bigger problem with private futexes

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Do you mean POSIX allowed to mix PROCESS_PRIVATE and PROCESS_SHARED
> > condvar and mutexes ? Seems silly to me :(

> Don't judge what you don't understand.

Yes, I kindly apologise for this crime.

> If all waiters are always in one
> process but the notifiers can be in different processes, this setup
> might make a lot of sense.

Thanks for providing this information.

I assume in this case the condvar is PSHARED, while mutex could be/is PRIVATE ?

I wonder how old (assuming all shared) code could work, since the notifier 
would call FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE giving a target address outside of this process vm ?

My understanding (probably bad, since I know nothing about POSIX as you mentioned)

- Old code could not use FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE if mutex was private.
-> Old code was using a normal FUTEX_WAKE in this case.

So I repeat my question : Should we really add yer another futex command in 
kernel for a corner case ?

Thanks
-
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/