This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


> 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.    


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]