Re: Change in functionality of futex() system call.

[Joel Becker]

On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:11:38PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 10:53 -0700, Darren Hart a écrit :
> > 
> 
> > If I understand the problem correctly, RO private mapping really doesn't
> > make any sense and we should probably explicitly not support it, while
> > special casing the RO shared mapping in support of David's scenario.
> > 
> 
> We supported them in 2.6.18 kernels, apparently. This might sounds
> stupid but who knows ?

	Trying to come up with a strawman for this sort of operation.
What about a process that creates a private mapping and then creates
threads with CLONE_VM?  Would we CoW in that case?

Joel

-- 

	Pitchers and catchers report.

			http://www.jlbec.org/
			jlbec@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/