From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 20 10:16:49 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 B2159106566B; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:16:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from redbull.bpaserver.net (redbullneu.bpaserver.net [213.198.78.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D00A8FC28; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:16:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p54A557F9.dip.t-dialin.net [84.165.87.249]) by redbull.bpaserver.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A695A2E0A4; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:16:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from webmail.leidinger.net (webmail.leidinger.net [192.168.1.102]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2625B946BE; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:15:30 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=Leidinger.net; s=outgoing-alex; t=1206008130; bh=hyAYJN9gYUBBEK+rWshNO5eyE909TJqRl CV0pX9aYQk=; h=Message-ID:X-Priority:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:Content-Transfer-Encoding:User-Agent; b=u5bGBK quLt7vnQ3+4bfQ/9EGj4AwKwboN2YVksIo5w7fPEz/y0DKmUi4YBkUTlehd2gKqGMwl bHXk7FOt1848NH4xuGV3F4RbIfa0Ck4Z17D1k1FbLhuRLOZdVVtW1HQTROugHlyPKOE v1jkw5Vxt0UzP879MzuBiVogietpN1ao6nDItnHUKTtnOdf3YPW8gFcKY56RIB5zjUq ktbcFshLczmjy7AWLMaaZZ/GRv0Xxjml3RUxG0OBbZ/owpYWCK68AOYinj1N3KR2Fbf JNsdtb+QOgMZc9SrmvRZXgtPV1T1R0HDn0WDFpQ1uONthZTGZIMzCd4I/4X4du+GTby Q== Received: (from www@localhost) by webmail.leidinger.net (8.14.2/8.13.8/Submit) id m2KAFOhf073153; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:15:24 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from pslux.cec.eu.int (pslux.cec.eu.int [158.169.9.14]) by webmail.leidinger.net (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:15:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20080320111524.0j8stbuny84gwswc@webmail.leidinger.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:15:24 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Roman Divacky References: <96317980@ipt.ru> <20080319204521.GA98846@freebsd.org> <20080320080703.ws5h2vaqskkw4w0s@webmail.leidinger.net> <20080320085122.GB32936@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080320085122.GB32936@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.5) / FreeBSD-8.0 X-BPAnet-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-BPAnet-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BPAnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-14.004, required 6, BAYES_00 -15.00, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 1.40, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10, SMILEY -0.50) X-BPAnet-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-Spam-Status: No 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 10:16:49 -0000 Quoting Roman Divacky (from Thu, 20 Mar 2008 =20 09:51:22 +0100): > 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: >> > >> >=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 >> 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. The thought behind this is, that we can go from "should be" to "are". =20 Doing a rate limited logging (print the message once) in -current (not =20 in a MFC) should be enough to get a better idea. > 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 print= f. It's not about finding some to implement it, it's about getting _hard_ =20 facts in our userbase. > It can only confuse normal people I think.. For this reason I said to change the comment. Here's what I mean: ---snip--- static int limit_once =3D 0; if (!limit_once) { limit_once =3D 1; printf("FD futex not implemented, linux wants to deprecate =20 it. Do not report this, except when you see a real failure/misbehavior =20 because of this."); } return (ENOSYS); ---snip--- > 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 :) Yes, I understand that. What I wanted to know is, if you want to add a =20 if/case statement with LINUX_FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG which does nothing =20 (except containing the comment) for consistency/strict correctness =20 reasons. As told above, I see value in both ways of doing it. I assume =20 now you want to commit the patch as is, no need to comment further on =20 this. Bye, Alexander. --=20 You know you have a small apartment when Rice Krispies echo. =09=09-- S. Rickly Christian http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137