Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA10406; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [204.62.130.91]) by hyperreal.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA10395 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:33:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30278 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 1997 09:31:04 -0000 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 02:31:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Dean Gaudet To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] SysV semaphores In-Reply-To: <19970806102911.08548@webcrawler.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org You're making me depressed! If we do a SEM_UNDO +1, and a SEM_UNDO -1 the kernel doesn't have anything to remember, right? Please say yes! Dean On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Martijn Koster wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 1997 at 06:56:21PM -0700, Dean Gaudet wrote: > > > > I'm curious, I think we want SEM_UNDO on both semop calls. I haven't > > looked at the linux kernel code ... maybe someone more familiar with > > these things can tell me. I'm concerned that with SEM_UNDO only on > > the acquire code we'll end up with a huge undo count that will all be > > applied when the process exits... > > Yup; but first you'll out of kernel space for those SEM_UNDO's. > > -- Martijn Koster, m.koster@pobox.com > >