Messages in this thread | | | From | Hubertus Franke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fast Userspace Mutexes III. | Date | Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:15:44 -0500 |
| |
On Monday 04 March 2002 11:48 pm, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:48:48 -0500 > > Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com> wrote: > > Also, the check on PROT_SEM is missing. I tried this before and glibc > > filtered these flags out when set. But effectively, one still needs to > > check whether semaphores are allowed during the sys_futex call. > > Neither arch I care about (ppc, x86) needs to do anything with PROT_SEM, so > it's OK. glibc will have to be fixed on any architectures which require > help here, and a hook will be needed somewhere in the kernel for them. > > I didn't implement it because I don't *know* which archs will need > something, and what they will need. Hence my request for arch maintainers > to step forward (Linus said they exist, and I believe him). > > Hope that clarifies this particular wart... > Rusty.
Clarifies only partially.
I agree to put it there if its not used as a means to define whether user locks are permitted or not. If that is the intention, then the current futex will need to check every access through find_vma(), which we both know nobody wants to do.
So it can only be used for architectural hints, agreed ?
-- -- Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com) - 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/
| |