From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8258
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Isaac Dunham <ibid.ag@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: New optimized normal-type mutex?
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:05:05 -0700
Message-ID: <20150803200504.GA1903@newbook>
References: <20150730001014.GA16376@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <1438243654.10742.9.camel@inria.fr>
 <1438247427.10742.13.camel@inria.fr>
 <alpine.LNX.2.20.1507301228230.11825@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
 <1438250459.10742.16.camel@inria.fr>
 <alpine.LNX.2.20.1507301426460.11825@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
 <20150730134649.GC16376@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <1438272464.10742.20.camel@inria.fr>
 <alpine.LNX.2.20.1508031924520.19951@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
 <1438631007.19011.5.camel@inria.fr>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1438632304 13059 80.91.229.3 (3 Aug 2015 20:05:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:05:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-8271-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Aug 03 22:05:03 2015
Return-path: <musl-return-8271-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-8271-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1ZMLyp-0006zb-62
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 22:05:03 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 24002 invoked by uid 550); 3 Aug 2015 20:05:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 23984 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2015 20:05:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=f/RibYdrqkQ9EPtO9s2QWcicu2E2x4kSLySl8AJOeJw=;
        b=zf2FAijvsEZz7mplJ6SBzttvqhV7HX/940ZsPtYSLRTdAFr786K/2j2lHejOwULxcz
         umAaSmmVmK6Ktxc4FK8B1/H4lccGobyLGh1NQ5QEYDgar21kbv88BcEC+iFr0jtPFUjz
         /rZ5P+9bL0p9UMTvH+zWF0jOKkx6PW4A6QLEH/9rKaZ+rvy6r3dGaj6JMC3sl+BR1Xsm
         ab7kzBkkoG5rRPFumISXUXFSm5GrSD/7zbf8g6S5mcmfoMPcr7CQPGwVxLB0b2eQlTjO
         nmoRNtT1G0QTQwAMJMEic1oX8UsbQWgQlr2jyW7WzWZ3zGQ8GO1m8sHt7yYhw2OMVUdp
         bYaQ==
X-Received: by 10.70.87.195 with SMTP id ba3mr39667679pdb.154.1438632288878;
        Mon, 03 Aug 2015 13:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1438631007.19011.5.camel@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8258
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8258>

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.
However, there are certain uses where one is specified by the standard,
and others where the other is specified.

Thanks,
Isaac Dunham