Andrew Morton wrote:
> Well OK. But that doesn't actually explain why 64-bit mutexes are needed.
> It just says they are required.
I can show you the code but it's not easy to understand. For
complicated syn objects like rwlocks the state information is more than
just locked or not. Currently w
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:12:11 -0700 Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Why do we want 64-bit futexes?
>
> I sent this to you already on 1/12/2007:
>
> http://udrepper.livejournal.com/13123.html
>
Well OK. But that doesn't actually explain why 64-bit mutexes ar
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Why do we want 64-bit futexes?
I sent this to you already on 1/12/2007:
http://udrepper.livejournal.com/13123.html
--
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:52:07 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This last patch is an adaptation of the sys_futex64 syscall provided in -rt
> patch (originally written by Ingo). It allows the use of 64bit futex.
>
> I have re-worked most of the code to avoid the duplication of the code.
>
> It do
This last patch is an adaptation of the sys_futex64 syscall provided in -rt
patch (originally written by Ingo). It allows the use of 64bit futex.
I have re-worked most of the code to avoid the duplication of the code.
It does not provide the functionality for all architectures (only for x64 for
5 matches
Mail list logo
