From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21091 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2004 01:10:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21074 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2004 01:10:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.81.54.130) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2004 01:10:54 -0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D243E357B; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:10:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA51AqHH004274; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:10:52 -0800 Received: (from roland@localhost) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id iA51ApHW004271; Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:10:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411050110.iA51ApHW004271@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Roland McGrath To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: second thoughts on using dl_iterate_phdr() for cache-validation In-Reply-To: David Mosberger's message of Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40:46 -0800 <16778.52238.419635.428364@napali.hpl.hp.com> Emacs: where editing text is like playing Paganini on a glass harmonica. X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 > Is there a mechanism to queue this patch so it doesn't get lost again > when 2.3.5 is opened up? It never "got lost". It's your baby, and you didn't follow up on it before now. We use bugzilla for keeping track of things, but something can sit there unattended just as well if you don't stay on top of it. > 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. Either it's a counter with a robust well-defined semantics, or it's not. If it's not reliably usable as a counter, then there is no reason to call it one.