On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 00:17 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> (add Roland)
but you seem to have forgotten to actually edit the CC line, fixed
that ;-)
> On 07/29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 18:51 +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
> > >
> > > POSIX does not mandate that asynchron
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 08:58 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> But talking about syscalls the sys_perf_counter_open prototype is
>> really ugly - it uses either the pid or cpu argument which is a pretty
>> clear indicator it should actually
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:58 +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 08:58 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> But talking about syscalls the sys_perf_counter_open prototype is
> >> really ugly - it uses either the pid or
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:58 +0200, stephane eranian wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 08:58 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> >> But talking about syscalls the sys_perf_counter_o
On Thursday 30 July 2009, stephane eranian wrote:
> long sys_perf_counter_open(
>struct perf_counter_attr *attr,
>enum perf_target_type target_type,
>int target_id,
>int group_fd,
>unsigned long flags);
>
> Which is what you had, except without the struct.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 30 July 2009, stephane eranian wrote:
>> long sys_perf_counter_open(
>> struct perf_counter_attr *attr,
>> enum perf_target_type target_type,
>> int target_id,
>> int group_fd,
>> unsigned long f
On Thursday 30 July 2009, stephane eranian wrote:
> But that won't always work in the case of a 32-bit monitoring tool
> running on top of
> a 64-bit OS. Imagine the target id is indeed 64-bit, e.g., inode
> number (as suggested
> by Peter). It's not because you are a 32-bit tool than you cannot na
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 21:20 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes, this allows to send a private signal to sub-thread.
>
> But this is a bit strange, because the user can't specify it wants
> a thread-specific signal to the main thread, its tid == pid.
Ah, indeed. I'll make a patch for F_SETOWN_TID
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> I'll make a patch for F_SETOWN_TID then, unless someone
>> comes up with a better name for the creature ;-)
>
> I think you are right. It is not safe to change the current
> behaviour.
>
I agree. As I sai
