Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:57:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:57:28 -0500 Received: from [202.135.142.196] ([202.135.142.196]:29962 "EHLO wagner.rustcorp.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:57:16 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Linus Torvalds Cc: frankeh@watson.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Futexes IV (Fast Lightweight Userspace Semaphores) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:17:10 -0800." Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:57:21 +1100 Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message you write: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > > You've convinced me. > > > > Damn. Because now I've been playing with a different approach. > > I don't think your current patch is very useful. I agree. But your "Applied" EMail rushed me into posting it. > It's obviously slower, and while it is an interesting approach for not > just lock generation but also for synchronization points, it doesn't seem > to actually _buy_ you anything. And since the cookie isn't guaranteed to > be unique, you can't actually use it as a synchronization point on its > own, but must always still have some shared memory location as a > confirmation for whatever the synchronization was. My original cookie was 128 bits. ie. unique. > So: interesting approach, but in its current form pointless as far as I > can see. Yeah, I'm not sure what it's useful for either. But the code is out there if someone gets inspired... Thanks, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/