From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 20 08:51:42 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9148106566B for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:51:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz) Received: from vlakno.cz (vlk.vlakno.cz [62.168.28.247]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E08FC1E for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:51:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588116774D4; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:51:34 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vlakno.cz Received: from vlakno.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vlk.vlakno.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gjpPyOOolk5o; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:51:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from vlk.vlakno.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3082F676C58; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:51:23 +0100 (CET) Received: (from rdivacky@localhost) by vlk.vlakno.cz (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m2K8pNHT033378; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:51:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rdivacky) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:51:22 +0100 From: Roman Divacky To: Alexander Leidinger Message-ID: <20080320085122.GB32936@freebsd.org> References: <96317980@ipt.ru> <20080319204521.GA98846@freebsd.org> <20080320080703.ws5h2vaqskkw4w0s@webmail.leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080320080703.ws5h2vaqskkw4w0s@webmail.leidinger.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: additional futex operations X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:51:43 -0000 On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 08:07:03AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Roman Divacky (from Wed, 19 Mar 2008 > 21:45:21 +0100): > > > > >can you guys please test: > > > > www.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/futex_private_pi.patch > > > >especially if linux-firefox is still broken with this patch. > > What do you think about rate limiting (only one) the FD case instead > of hiding it completely (and using the content of the comment as the > message to print with a little bit of "only report if something is > obviously broken")? This way we could determine if we need it for > linux-backwards compatibility. I dont think the FD case is used widely and we correctly (now) return ENOSYS so no problems should be here. Also.. if anyone is willing/able to implement the FD backing I think such person is skilled enough to see what is the problem even without the printf. It can only confuse normal people I think.. I'd let it be as it is > Is this a proof of concept (do you plan to make a no-op > LINUX_FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG case in the switch to be consistent) or the > final solution? I see pros/cons for both and I think it doesn't matter > how it is done, I'm just curious about your opinion. we DO implement private futexes. we DONT implement shared ones. We dont share futexes on "vm" structure or file descriptor. The only reason why it works is because 99% of application want private futexes but dont claim so :) > Extremely nit-pickicking mode (you can silently ignore it): > s/But it/It/ > s/any sense/sense/ I'll reword the comment as kib@ requested.