Message-ID: <4651E992.9080205@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:48:50 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: second, bigger problem with private futexes
References: <4651D628.1070206@redhat.com> <4651E1D4.6010705@cosmosbay.com> <4651E44A.9070301@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4651E44A.9070301@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1283
Lines: 38

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/