On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:39:09AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
For example does gettid *really* return a pid_t as considered by
userspace? It's not a full out process...
Yeah, PIDs and TIDs are the same namespace in the kernel. All we have
are tasks and each task has an id. gettid() actually
Hi!
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling
the syscalls directly in the futextest test suite because of this:
Hi!
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling
the syscalls directly in the futextest test suite because of this:
Hi!
People have a number of times noted that there are problems
with syscall(), but I'm not knowledgeable on the details.
I'd happily take a patch to the man page (which, for historical
reasons, is actually syscall(2)) that explains the the problems
(and ideally notes those platforms where
On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:28:35 +0200
chru...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi!
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling
the syscalls
On 5/15/14, 6:46, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 05/15/2014 07:21 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 5/14/14, 17:18, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
On 5/15/14, 1:13, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:23:38PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so
On 05/15/2014 08:42 AM, chru...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi!
People have a number of times noted that there are problems
with syscall(), but I'm not knowledgeable on the details.
I'd happily take a patch to the man page (which, for historical
reasons, is actually syscall(2)) that explains the the
Hi!
Have a look at this commit that tries to deal with passing 64 bit
numbers to syscalls. On 32 bit ABI (but not on X32) these needs to be
split up (accordingly to machine endianity).
https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/commit/04afb02b4280a20c262054e8f99a3fad4ad54916
That
On 05/15/2014 09:01 AM, chru...@suse.cz wrote:
I really believe the proper fix is to use assembly syscall stubs. In
klibc I build a fairly elaborate machinery to autogenerate such syscall
stubs for a variety of architectures.
Then it would be nice to share these between klibc and LTP (and
On 5/15/14, 8:28, chru...@suse.cz chru...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi!
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling
the syscalls
Hi!
I really believe the proper fix is to use assembly syscall stubs. In
klibc I build a fairly elaborate machinery to autogenerate such syscall
stubs for a variety of architectures.
Then it would be nice to share these between klibc and LTP (and possible
everybody else).
It
Hi!
I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
advantage to keeping futextest independent.
What advantages did you have in mind?
Perhaps things have changed enough since then (~2009 era) that we
should reconsider.
I've been working on LTP for a about three years now
On 05/15/2014 09:17 AM, chru...@suse.cz wrote:
It should be quite easy to extract from klibc.
That is not the main concern here. If I extract the code I would have to
watch for any changes manually. If it was in a library or a separate
repository all that would be needed is to add it as
Hi!
That is not the main concern here. If I extract the code I would have to
watch for any changes manually. If it was in a library or a separate
repository all that would be needed is to add it as dependency/git
submodule and I would get all updates automatically.
Yes, and for that
On 5/15/14, 9:30, chru...@suse.cz chru...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi!
I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
advantage to keeping futextest independent.
What advantages did you have in mind?
Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)
OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here...
Hi!
I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
advantage to keeping futextest independent.
What advantages did you have in mind?
Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)
OK, I don't mean to be disparaging here... But since you asked, back in
'09 LTP had some test
On 05/14/2014 08:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/14/2014 01:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design,
On 5/15/14, 12:05, chru...@suse.cz chru...@suse.cz wrote:
Hi!
I've used LTP in the past (quite a bit), and I felt there was some
advantage to keeping futextest independent.
What advantages did you have in mind?
Not CVS was a big one at the time ;-)
OK, I don't mean to be disparaging
On 05/15/2014 04:14 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
And that universe would love to have your documentation of
FUTEX_WAKE_BITSET and FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET ;-),
I give you almost the full treatment, but I leave REQUEUE_PI to Darren
and
On 5/15/14, 7:14, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
Wow Thomas, I planned to do exactly this and you beat me to it. Again.
Thanks for getting this started.
Michael, I imagine you want something more condensed, and I'll add to what
tglx posted (inline below) to try and get you that, but
On 5/14/14, 17:18, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>> something users even have access to anymore. I had to
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> >> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>> >> removed the futex() call entirely, so
On 05/15/2014 05:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
> removed
On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't
On 05/14/2014 05:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> More fundamentally, futex(2), like clone(2), are things that can be
>> legitimately by user space without automatically breaking all of glibc.
>
> I'm lost -- I think the missing verb is important :)
>
... legitimately *used* by user space
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 01:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>>
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>>>
>>> I don't think futex() ever was
On 05/14/2014 01:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>>
>> I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
>> completely understandable: no
On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
> something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling
> the syscalls directly in the
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
> >> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
> >
> > I don't think futex() ever was in
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 02:03:13PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 5/14/14, 13:56, "Davidlohr Bueso" wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 21:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hi Darren,
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart
> >>wrote:
> >> > On 5/14/14, 3:35,
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 09:18 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 5/14/14, 3:35, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> wrote:
>
> >[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
> >
> >Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo,
> >Jakub),
> >
> >The futex
On 5/14/14, 13:56, "Davidlohr Bueso" wrote:
>On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 21:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Darren,
>>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart
>>wrote:
>> > On 5/14/14, 3:35, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>[So, some futex recent
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 21:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On 5/14/14, 3:35, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
> >>
>
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>>
>> I don't think futex() ever
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
>> removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
>
> I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
> completely
On 5/14/14, 12:03, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
wrote:
>Hi Darren,
>
>On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart
>wrote:
>> On 5/14/14, 3:35, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
>>>
>>>Hello all (especially
Hi Darren,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 5/14/14, 3:35, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> wrote:
>
>>[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
>>
>>Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo,
>>Jakub),
>>
>>The
On 5/14/14, 3:35, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
wrote:
>[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
>
>Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo,
>Jakub),
>
>The futex man pages:
>http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/futex.2.html
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo, Jakub),
The futex man pages:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/futex.2.html
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/futex.7.html
are currently in a sorry
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:28 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/14/2014 01:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I don't think futex() ever was in
On 05/14/2014 05:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
More fundamentally, futex(2), like clone(2), are things that can be
legitimately by user space without automatically breaking all of glibc.
I'm lost -- I think the missing verb is important :)
... legitimately *used* by user space ...
As in
On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I
On 05/15/2014 05:12 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 05/14/2014 07:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call
On 5/14/14, 17:18, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
something users even have access to anymore. I had to
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo, Jakub),
The futex man pages:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/futex.2.html
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/futex.7.html
are currently in a sorry
On 5/14/14, 3:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo,
Jakub),
The futex man pages:
Hi Darren,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart dvh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 5/14/14, 3:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas,
On 5/14/14, 12:03, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Darren,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart dvh...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
On 5/14/14, 3:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
completely understandable: no
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Carlos O'Donell car...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I don't think futex()
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 21:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Darren,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart dvh...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 5/14/14, 3:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should
On 5/14/14, 13:56, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 21:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Darren,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart dvh...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
On 5/14/14, 3:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 09:18 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
On 5/14/14, 3:35, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
wrote:
[So, some futex recent discussions remind me I should make this request]
Hello all (especially those in the To:, namely Thomas, Darren, Ingo,
Jakub),
The
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 02:03:13PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
On 5/14/14, 13:56, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 21:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Darren,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Darren Hart dvh...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
On
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 05/14/2014 03:03 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I don't think futex() ever was in
On 05/14/2014 09:18 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
something users even have access to anymore. I had to revert to calling
the syscalls directly in the futextest
On 05/14/2014 01:56 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
However, unless I'm sorely mistaken, the larger problem is that glibc
removed the futex() call entirely, so these man pages don't describe
I don't think futex() ever was in glibc--that's by design, and
completely understandable: no user-space
101 - 159 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
