On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 20:21 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> The actual Linux implementation for semctl(GETNCNT) and semctl(GETZCNT)
> always (since 0.99.10) reported a thread as sleeping on all semaphores
> that are listed in the semop() call.
> The documented behavior (both in the Linux man page an
The actual Linux implementation for semctl(GETNCNT) and semctl(GETZCNT)
always (since 0.99.10) reported a thread as sleeping on all semaphores
that are listed in the semop() call.
The documented behavior (both in the Linux man page and in the Single Unix
Specification) is that a task should be repo
Hi Joe,
On 05/25/2014 08:39 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 20:21 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
+*/
+ printk_once(KERN_INFO "semctl(GETNCNT/GETZCNT) is since 3.16 Single " \
+ "Unix Specification compliant.\n" \
+
On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 20:21 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> The actual Linux implementation for semctl(GETNCNT) and semctl(GETZCNT)
> always (since 0.99.10) reported a thread as sleeping on all semaphores
> that are listed in the semop() call.
> The documented behavior (both in the Linux man page an
The actual Linux implementation for semctl(GETNCNT) and semctl(GETZCNT)
always (since 0.99.10) reported a thread as sleeping on all semaphores
that are listed in the semop() call.
The documented behavior (both in the Linux man page and in the Single Unix
Specification) is that a task should be repo
5 matches
Mail list logo