Re: New optimized normal-type mutex?

[Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1090 bytes --]

Am Montag, den 03.08.2015, 13:05 -0700 schrieb Isaac Dunham:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 09:43:27PM +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 03.08.2015, 19:36 +0300 schrieb Alexander Monakov:
> > > > Now let us try to figure out what happens in the case that started
> > > > this new discussion, namely that there is so much contention such that
> > > > the probability of an EAGAIN-failure of the mutex call increases.
> > > 
> > > As long as we're talking in terms of futexes, it's EWOULDBLOCK, not EAGAIN.
> > 
> > Hm, yes I meant futex, but it really is EAGAIN that I observe. So the
> > man page seems out of sync with reality.
> 
> EWOULDBLOCK and EAGAIN are the same value (11), as specifically allowed
> by POSIX.

right, that explains it, thanks

Jens

-- 
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536   ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183   ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::




[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]