Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:31:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:30:02 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:4114 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:29:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:28:31 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Matthew Kirkwood cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Lightweight user-level semaphores In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Matthew Kirkwood wrote: > > * It leaks. How were you going to refcount the kernel > portions? Could they be attached to the VM mapping? > Would a lockfs be too expensive? Yes, I was going to just attach to the vma, along with potentially also require a flag at mmap time (MAP_SEMAPHORE - some other unixes have something like it already) to tell the OS about the consistency issues that might come up on some architectures (on x86 it would be a no-op). > * It doesn't have a timeout. Is there something like a > down_timeout() available? Not as-is, but all the kernel infrastructure should be there in theory. > * I don't do the: > > if (kfs->user_address != fs) > goto bad_sem; > > because it doesn't seem to add anything, and prevents > putting these locks in a non-fixed file or SysV SHM > map. Fair enough. I think I suggested that just as another sanity check, and because some architectures _will_ require address issues (not necessarily total equality, but at least "modulo X equality"). Linus - 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/