In article <20160520091545.ga30...@britannica.bec.de>, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote: >On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> You can see how FreeBSD is implementing them; it is a lot of code to do >> this and would require some architectural review. The relevant files are: >> >> http://nxr.netbsd.org/xref/src-freebsd/lib/libthr/thread/thr_pshared.c >> http://nxr.netbsd.org/xref/src-freebsd/lib/libthr/thread/thr_barrierattr.c >> http://nxr.netbsd.org/xref/src-freebsd/sys/kern/kern_umtx.c >> >> We don't have such mutex functionality in our kernel. Implementing this >> would be a GSoC project in itself. > >I don't think we want to use futexes in general. I'm not even sure I >care about performance for something horrible like "robust" mutexes at >all. A good starting point might to just extend the existing semaphores, >if necessary.
Yes, but should we commit the proposed ENOSYS stubs in the meantime just to have the functions available? I am not sure... christos
