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

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

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:36:25 -0800, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said:

  >> So when should I check back?

  Roland> You should take responsibility for the work you want done
  Roland> and continue improving it until you've submitted a patch
  Roland> that has nothing wrong with it.  Please don't pretend there
  Roland> is some mystery about how to contribute effectively.

I'm not sure I understand.  You said the tree is currently closed for
new interfaces.  All I'm asking is when you're expecting the tree to
reopen again.

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

  Roland> What is the documentation about the meaning of the values
  Roland> and the effects of overflow?

As for the meaning of the values, see the documentation in link.h:

----
/* The value returned by this function increments by at least 1 when
   objects are added to the list visited by dl_iterate_phdr().  This
   function is not serialized with respect to dl_iterate_phdr().  If
   serialization is needed, this function should be called from within
   a dl_itereate_phdr() callback.  */
extern unsigned long int dl_phdr_additions_counter (void);

/* The vaue returned by this function increments by at least 1 when
   objects are removed from the list visited by dl_iterate_phdr().
   This function is not serialized with respect to dl_iterate_phdr().
   If serialization is needed, this function should be called from
   within a dl_itereate_phdr() callback.  */
extern unsigned long int dl_phdr_removals_counter (void);
----

I'll add a comment about the possibility of overflows.

	--david