PROT_SEM + FUTEX

Mark Mielke (mark@mark.mielke.cc)
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:12:17 -0500

Is PROT_SEM necessary anymore? 2.5.46 does not seem to include any
references to it that adjust behaviour for pages. Would it be
reasonable to remove it, or #define PROT_SEM to (0) to avoid
confusion?

I am beginning to play with the FUTEX system call. I am hoping that
PROT_SEM is not required, as I intend to scatter the words throughout
memory, and it would be a real pain to mprotect(PROT_SEM) each page
that contains a FUTEX word.

For systems that do not support the FUTEX system call (2.4.x?),
is sched_yield() the best alternative?

Thanks,
mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...


                           http://mark.mielke.cc/


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/