Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 10:24:01 -0800 From: "Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse" <jdw_list@wwwi.com> To: mouss <usebsd@free.fr> Cc: "Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse" <jdw_list@wwwi.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: POSIX mutexes on FreeBSD Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20010205095728.020c0b00@cornelius.home.wwwi.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20010205143317.05751cd0@pop.free.fr> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010202110620.0220cb98@pop.wwwi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:36 PM 2/5/2001 +0100, mouss wrote: >do you mean that the >"PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED", pthread_mutexattr_getpshared and the like do >not currently work? dunno if they were there before, but they are in >current. so you might want to check. _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED is still commented out in /usr/include/sys/unistd.h in -current, and I don't see implementations of these functions in /usr/src/lib/libc_r/uthread, so it appears at first glance that the state of -current is the same as -stable. This functionality does not appear to be implemented in either version. I don't actually run -current, so I can't say for sure. If I'm missing something, please let me know because it would save me a lot of trouble. My point was that the way it would be done seems to differ greatly between -stable and -current, based on the eventual availability of kernel mutexes to user processes. I don't know how far away the glorious future is, so I was wondering if it would be worthwhile for me to do a stopgap implementation in the mean time. If no one has ever noticed that the functionality was missing, the answer may well be "no." Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20010205095728.020c0b00>