Re: second thoughts on using dl_iterate_phdr() for cache-validation

[David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>]

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:10:51 -0800, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said:

  >> Is there a mechanism to queue this patch so it doesn't get lost
  >> again when 2.3.5 is opened up?

  Roland> It never "got lost".  It's your baby, and you didn't follow
  Roland> up on it before now.  We use bugzilla for keeping track of
  Roland> things, but something can sit there unattended just as well
  Roland> if you don't stay on top of it.

So when should I check back?

  >> The incrementing is always done under protection of a lock.  The
  >> reading is not, but on those machines where reading an "unsigned
  >> long long int" isn't atomic, the effect is no worse than when
  >> using "unsigned int".  And on those machines where it is atomic,
  >> "unsigned long long int" pretty much guarantees that the counter
  >> will never overflow.

  Roland> Either it's a counter with a robust well-defined semantics,
  Roland> or it's not.  If it's not reliably usable as a counter, then
  Roland> there is no reason to call it one.

Fine; I don't mind changing it back to "unsigned long int".

	--david