Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:07:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:07:04 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:42507 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:06:57 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:10:29 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Richard Henderson cc: Hubertus Franke , Robert Love , Rusty Russell , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fast Userspace Mutexes III. In-Reply-To: <20020306175846.B26064@twiddle.net> 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 Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Richard Henderson wrote: > 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. agreed, whatever solution does not solve it completely and makes things is lot more complex. it's not an issue ... - Davide - 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/