Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:12:17 -0500 | From | Mark Mielke <> | Subject | PROT_SEM + FUTEX |
| |
Is PROT_SEM necessary anymore? 2.5.46 does not seem to include any references to it that adjust behaviour for pages. Would it be reasonable to remove it, or #define PROT_SEM to (0) to avoid confusion?
I am beginning to play with the FUTEX system call. I am hoping that PROT_SEM is not required, as I intend to scatter the words throughout memory, and it would be a real pain to mprotect(PROT_SEM) each page that contains a FUTEX word.
For systems that do not support the FUTEX system call (2.4.x?), is sched_yield() the best alternative?
Thanks, mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
- 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/
| |