Hi Manfred
got it :) I am so glad that my minor is on top of yours
Anyway,
Do you think it is more safe to update the otime like this:
- sma->sem_base[sops[0].sem_num].sem_otime =
-get_seconds();
+if (sops == NULL) {
+sma->sem_base[0].sem_
Hi Jia,
On 09/25/2013 05:05 AM, Jia He wrote:
Hi Manfred
IIUC after reivewing your patch and src code, does it seem
sem_otime lost the chance to be updated when calling
semctl_main/semctl_setval?
In old codes, even whendo_smart_update(sma, NULL, 0, 0, &tasks),
the otime can be updated after se
Hi Manfred
IIUC after reivewing your patch and src code, does it seem
sem_otime lost the chance to be updated when calling
semctl_main/semctl_setval?
In old codes, even whendo_smart_update(sma, NULL, 0, 0, &tasks),
the otime can be updated after several conditions checking.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23
On 09/22/2013 05:14 PM, Jia He wrote:
Hi Manfred
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:42:05 +0200 from manf...@colorfullife.com wrote:
Hi all,
On 09/22/2013 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
In commi
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
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 though
Hi Manfred
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:42:05 +0200 from manf...@colorfullife.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 09/22/2013 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of sem
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:42:05 +0200 from manf...@colorfullife.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 09/22/2013 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of semaphore's s
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
Hi all,
On 09/22/2013 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of semaphore's sem_otime(last semop time)
was removed because he wanted to move setting sem->sem_otime t
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 :)
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 :)
Anyway, your implementation looks not correct to me. Because from "man semop"
sem_otime wil
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:17 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
> > In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of semaphore's sem_otime(last semop time)
> > was removed because he wanted to move setting sem->sem_otime to one
> > place. But after that, the initial se
On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 10:11 +0800, Jia He wrote:
> In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of semaphore's sem_otime(last semop time)
> was removed because he wanted to move setting sem->sem_otime to one
> place. But after that, the initial semop() will not set the otime
> because its sem_op value is 0(in se
In commit 0a2b9d4c,the update of semaphore's sem_otime(last semop time)
was removed because he wanted to move setting sem->sem_otime to one
place. But after that, the initial semop() will not set the otime
because its sem_op value is 0(in semtimedop,will not change
otime if alter == 1).
the error
15 matches
Mail list logo
