From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Carlos O'Donell" Subject: Re: futex wait failure Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:36:22 -0500 Message-ID: <119aab441002011336u676bdef4oaf3b891a94916949@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B67252A.2000501@gmx.de> <20100201191141.EE51F4EA9@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Helge Deller , dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org To: John David Anglin Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100201191141.EE51F4EA9@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:11 PM, John David Anglin wrote: >> >> No, sadly it didn't fixed it. > > I tend to think clone/fork syscalls need to be guarded to ensure a st= able > configuration while the syscall executes. =A0It may be the problem ar= ises > because we use clone for fork. =A0Do any other targets do this? All targets call nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fork.c, which calls ARCH_FORK, which is implemented using clone() for *all* targets. In fact, owing to the POSIX atfork requirements, it's very difficult to implement fork properly without using Linux clone. Cheers, Carlos. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"= in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html