Jan Kiszka wrote:
> BTW, I'm also preparing a patch to overcome hash chain registrations for
> anonymous (handle-only) objects as I need more of them (one for each
> thread) for fast mutexes - to avoid fiddling with kernel pointers in
> userland.

Ok. You will have a problem mangling a registry handle with the claimed
bit. Or maybe we can assume that the bit 31 is not used or something ?

And by the way, I had an idea of removing the duplication of the owner
field between an xnsynch and a mutex object, this would allow saving a
syscall when a situation of mutex stealing happened. Using a handle
would prevent this. But I am not so sure it is a good idea now (namely
because it would move some compare-and-swap the owner logic to the
xnsynch API).


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to