Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:08:11 -0400 From: Gary Stanley <gary@velocity-servers.net> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: additional futex operations Message-ID: <20080320090815.278148FC1B@mx1.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080320085122.GB32936@freebsd.org> References: <96317980@ipt.ru> <20080319204521.GA98846@freebsd.org> <20080320080703.ws5h2vaqskkw4w0s@webmail.leidinger.net> <20080320085122.GB32936@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:51 AM 3/20/2008, Roman Divacky wrote: >On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 08:07:03AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Quoting Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> (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 I think it should be commented out and not rate limited. If nothing else, just add another #define for FUTEX_DEBUG and enable it if DEBUG is defined in the kernel. -G
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080320090815.278148FC1B>