On 20/03/18(Tue) 18:24, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 26/02/18(Mon) 17:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 20/10/17(Fri) 11:50, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > On 14/10/17(Sat) 22:07, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The diff below adds
On 26/02/18(Mon) 17:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 20/10/17(Fri) 11:50, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 14/10/17(Sat) 22:07, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > >
> > > The diff below adds proctreelk, an rwlock protecting the links of the
> > > process tree an
On 20/10/17(Fri) 11:50, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 14/10/17(Sat) 22:07, Philip Guenther wrote:
> >
> > The diff below adds proctreelk, an rwlock protecting the links of the
> > process tree and related bits, as well as uidinfolk, an rwlock protecting
> > the uidinfo
On 14/10/17(Sat) 22:07, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> The diff below adds proctreelk, an rwlock protecting the links of the
> process tree and related bits, as well as uidinfolk, an rwlock protecting
> the uidinfo hash table.
>
> Parts of this are based on FreeBSD's proctree_
The diff below adds proctreelk, an rwlock protecting the links of the
process tree and related bits, as well as uidinfolk, an rwlock protecting
the uidinfo hash table.
Parts of this are based on FreeBSD's proctree_lock, particularly the
reorganization of enterpgrp() into enternewpgrp