Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:07:03 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]: additional futex operations Message-ID: <20080320080703.ws5h2vaqskkw4w0s@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20080319204521.GA98846@freebsd.org> References: <96317980@ipt.ru> <20080319204521.GA98846@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 19 Mar 2008 =20 21:45:21 +0100): > > can you guys please test: > > =09www.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 =20 of hiding it completely (and using the content of the comment as the =20 message to print with a little bit of "only report if something is =20 obviously broken")? This way we could determine if we need it for =20 linux-backwards compatibility. Is this a proof of concept (do you plan to make a no-op =20 LINUX_FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG case in the switch to be consistent) or the =20 final solution? I see pros/cons for both and I think it doesn't matter =20 how it is done, I'm just curious about your opinion. Extremely nit-pickicking mode (you can silently ignore it): s/But it/It/ s/any sense/sense/ Bye, Alexander. --=20 Hubbard's Law: =09Don't take life too seriously; =09you won't get out of it alive. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080320080703.ws5h2vaqskkw4w0s>