Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:59:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:59:12 -0500 Received: from are.twiddle.net ([64.81.246.98]:22426 "EHLO are.twiddle.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:59:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:58:46 -0800 From: Richard Henderson To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Hubertus Franke , Robert Love , Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fast Userspace Mutexes III. Message-ID: <20020306175846.B26064@twiddle.net> Mail-Followup-To: Davide Libenzi , Hubertus Franke , Robert Love , Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <20020304154848.A1055@elinux01.watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from davidel@xmailserver.org on Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:15:58PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 02:15:58PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > That's great. What if the process holding the mutex dies while there're > sleeping tasks waiting for it ? The lock is lost. The same thing would happen with locks completely implemented in userspace. I don't see that the kernel should do anything about this. If a thread is killed with predudice (i.e. without pthread_cancel) then there are all sorts of cleanups that won't happen. Having the kernel automatically unlock the locks doesn't help much, since the data structures are quite likely in an inconsistent state. r~ - 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/