From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8715BB81 for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:26:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.enyo.de (mail.enyo.de [212.9.189.167]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k2BFQjZK024681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:26:46 +0100 Received: from deneb.vpn.enyo.de ([212.9.189.177] helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1FI5zL-0003Wi-LA; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:26:39 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FI5zF-0004cs-Mb; Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:26:33 +0100 From: Florian Weimer To: skaller Cc: Brian Hurt , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr, William Lovas Subject: Re: [Caml-list] STM support in OCaml References: <440DB255.1030701@asfandyar.cjb.net> <1141751708.20944.355.camel@budgie.wigram> <440DD982.8080800@asfandyar.cjb.net> <1141779125.20944.405.camel@budgie.wigram> <20060308193633.GA5460@coruscant.stwing.upenn.edu> <1141855594.23909.63.camel@budgie.wigram> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:26:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1141855594.23909.63.camel@budgie.wigram> (skaller@users.sourceforge.net's message of "Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:06:34 +1100") Message-ID: <87fylpovdi.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4412EC35.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 afaik:01 interprocess:01 libc:01 variants:01 caml-list:01 kernel:01 florian:02 gnu:02 mutex:03 mutex:03 shared:04 linux:06 linux:06 quite:06 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 > I have no idea if Linux, for example, running SMP kernel, > is smart enough to know if a mutex is shared between two > processing units or not: AFAIK Linux doesn't support > interprocess mutex. Uhm, Linux and GNU libc do support them for quite some time (many years if you used one of the enterprise variants which backported them to Linux 2.4).