> And if posix file locks are to be useful to threaded applications, then
> we have to preserve the same no-false-positives requirement for them as
> well.
It isn't useful to threaded applications. The specification requires
this. Which is another reason for having an additional Linux (for now)
flag to say "don't bother"
Alan
-
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/
- References:
- [PATCH] locks: fix possible infinite loop in posix deadlock detection
- [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
- Re: [RFC, PATCH] locks: remove posix deadlock detection
[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]