On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:00:21 +0200 from bitbuc...@online.de wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 17:34 +0800, Jia He wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments, but pls add my email as "from jiaker...@gmail.com"
>> if you have a better implementation.U know, it is my first kernel patch,
>> maybe
>> will give me a brilliant memory in the future :)
> You can have the blame if you like :)
>
>> Anyway, your implementation looks not correct to me. Because from "man semop"
>> sem_otime will record the last sem operation time of semop. If you change the
>> otime in semget(), it changes the meanings in stardard, doesn't it?
> A Linux kernel doing a semop in 1970 would be a kinda neat trick :)
I will try to make it more clear
comes to my test case again:
process_a(server) process_b(client)
semget() <-seems you choose to set it here
--------------- <1> --------------------
semctl(SETVAL)
semop()
semget()
setctl(IP_STAT)
for(;;) {
check until sem_otime > 0
}
And assume that schedule() happenes at <1>, then sem_otime will >0
in process_b's for(;;), but at that time, the process_a's semctl()
hasn't been called yet.
>
> -Mike
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
