Hi David,
On 02/29/2016 10:22 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> Linux also updates sempid for SETVAL operations and semaphore
>> adjustments. However, somewhat inconsistently, it does not
>> update sempid for SETALL operations.
Hi David,
On 02/29/2016 10:22 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> Linux also updates sempid for SETVAL operations and semaphore
>> adjustments. However, somewhat inconsistently, it does not
>> update sempid for SETALL operations.
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Linux also updates sempid for SETVAL operations and semaphore
adjustments. However, somewhat inconsistently, it does not
update sempid for SETALL operations. While the SETALL behavior
might be viewed as a bug, the
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Linux also updates sempid for SETVAL operations and semaphore
adjustments. However, somewhat inconsistently, it does not
update sempid for SETALL operations. While the SETALL behavior
might be viewed as a bug, the
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:42 AM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
wrote:
> Agreed. Is it better to change the man page and document the behaviour?
Requoting text I just added to the Bugzilla report to explain why the
right approach seems to be to document, rather than
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:42 AM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
wrote:
> Agreed. Is it better to change the man page and document the behaviour?
Requoting text I just added to the Bugzilla report to explain why the
right approach seems to be to document, rather than change this
behavior:
So, given
Agreed. Is it better to change the man page and document the behaviour?
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
Agreed. Is it better to change the man page and document the behaviour?
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Furthermore, semop.2 is very explicit about sempid. That said, I am also weary
of this
change because we've been setting semval for semctl for so long.
s/semval/sempid :)
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Furthermore, semop.2 is very explicit about sempid. That said, I am also weary
of this
change because we've been setting semval for semctl for so long.
s/semval/sempid :)
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
This is a user-visible change, adding mtk.
Hi,
On 02/26/2016 01:21 PM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
As described in bug #112271 (bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112271)
don't
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Manfred Spraul wrote:
This is a user-visible change, adding mtk.
Hi,
On 02/26/2016 01:21 PM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
As described in bug #112271 (bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112271)
don't set sempid in semctl syscall.
Hi,
On 02/26/2016 01:21 PM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
As described in bug #112271 (bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112271)
don't set sempid in semctl syscall. Set sempid only when semop is called.
I disagree with the
Hi,
On 02/26/2016 01:21 PM, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
As described in bug #112271 (bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112271)
don't set sempid in semctl syscall. Set sempid only when semop is called.
I disagree with the bug report:
sempid is (and
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
As described in bug #112271 (bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112271)
don't set sempid in semctl syscall. Set sempid only when semop is called.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
ipc/sem.c |
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
As described in bug #112271 (bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=112271)
don't set sempid in semctl syscall. Set sempid only when semop is called.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
ipc/sem.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
16 matches
Mail list logo