Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> @@ -230,18 +230,20 @@ static inline int mutex_save_count(xnthr
>
> mutex = shadow->mutex;
>
> - if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_intptr_get(mutex->o
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
@@ -230,18 +230,20 @@ static inline int mutex_save_count(xnthr
mutex = shadow->mutex;
- if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_intptr_get(mutex->owner)) != cur)
+ if
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> @@ -230,18 +230,20 @@ static inline int mutex_save_count(xnthr
>>>
>>> mutex = shadow->mutex;
>>>
>>> - if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_intptr_get(mutex->owner)) != cur)
>>> + if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_get(mu
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> @@ -230,18 +230,20 @@ static inline int mutex_save_count(xnthr
>>
>> mutex = shadow->mutex;
>>
>> -if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_intptr_get(mutex->owner)) != cur)
>> +if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_get(mutex->owner)) !=
>> +
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> @@ -230,18 +230,20 @@ static inline int mutex_save_count(xnthr
>
> mutex = shadow->mutex;
>
> - if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_intptr_get(mutex->owner)) != cur)
> + if (clear_claimed(xnarch_atomic_get(mutex->owner)) !=
> + xnthread_handle(cur))
>
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
> later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
> instead of kernel object pointer. Therefore, this patch changes
> __xn_sys_current (xeno_set_current) so that it returns
> xnthread_handl
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
> later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
> instead of kernel o
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
> later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
> instead of kernel o
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
instead of kernel object pointer. Therefore,
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
>>> later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
>>> instead of kernel object pointer. Therefore, this patch changes
>>> __xn_sys_cur
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
>> later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
>> instead of kernel object pointer. Therefore, this patch changes
>> __xn_sys_current (xeno_set_current) s
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
> later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
> instead of kernel object pointer. Therefore, this patch changes
> __xn_sys_current (xeno_set_current) so that it returns
> xnthread_handl
To improve robustness of the fast mutex implementation in POSIX (and
later on in native), it is better to track the mutex owner by handle
instead of kernel object pointer. Therefore, this patch changes
__xn_sys_current (xeno_set_current) so that it returns
xnthread_handle(current_thread). It furthe
13 matches
Mail list logo