On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 03:08:36 +0200 from bitbuc...@online.de wrote: > On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 12:42 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > >> Mike: no, your patch makes it worse: >> - wait-for-zero semops still don't update sem_otime >> - sem_otime is initialized to sem_ctime. That's not mentioned in the >> sysv standard. > So sem_otime = 0 is a specified semaphore state? I thought the proggy > was busted for spinning on a (busted and) irrelevant stamp. Please refer to the words from Unix Network Programming - Volume 2 2nd Edition Chapter 11 "Fortunately, there is a way around this race condition. We are guaranteed that thesem-otime member of the semid-ds structure is set to 0 when a new semaphore set iscreated. (The System V manuals have stated this fact for a long time, as do the XPG3and Unix 98 standards.) This member is set to the current time only by a successful callto semop." > > Man lernt nie aus. > > -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/