From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10756 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Khem Raj Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Robust shared mutexes? Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:36:50 -0800 Message-ID: <651EE05A-C592-45C3-BAB6-A6CDDDAF98A4@gmail.com> References: <20161126214943.GA2635@hotdamn.lan> <20161126222443.GV1555@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20161126225104.GA2151@hotdamn.lan> <20161126225617.GW1555@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1480369032 5974 195.159.176.226 (28 Nov 2016 21:37:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Sebastian Kemper To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-10769-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Mon Nov 28 22:37:07 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cBTbj-0000BV-O8 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 22:37:03 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 23857 invoked by uid 550); 28 Nov 2016 21:37:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 23836 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2016 21:37:04 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U3OjnhxINNyIV9KsRs8YOdScOyicIoZtdX9FFqXndbo=; b=kKbigFZQzE2bNiR71PyO96i9XYv0+zaW6fkr8ol5ayLq2Vp3oz3jPSOBJgud1OS6yJ e3MAtsJwrARvx8nopRZt4Cl3e85qw1pG4h31nOdxN7/G39B4y+TEpo5utMUWAyZXrmPE RgYS56M+QsDyIhBqPB9aWZkp8o73C4Ri12MnRg7qhhXlKkfg0UJ1bDbYsCtVfUa8YPmx DCNNOovOkQKIsCB0vUa/oEeRb7SfBjTbp8IJyJQ3BJD6NOeW2TL554wnM3wa1qMeHRbZ BgmsAgYzZX1ftLap3AMCy8oG3a+AAxRsZwIs6B1JfE3TkO/BkbzkSxdV6FLGzn6fIvyu E+Dg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U3OjnhxINNyIV9KsRs8YOdScOyicIoZtdX9FFqXndbo=; b=KYjbLDQJdRka5MftaVndmhtVwyriZAY44oUvUV/ckijbs1Wuf6VkBF9ZhAn1QfyxFu 214BXq1Ma2dIeD2vfX+dr0BbA0mLf0efYwVKGElBB5tTJHvhs/DnYzmsdzLNPCua8cD5 pyAJrAdOc3hRcx9Pjy+Cml7nZ3XvFmI4XTZT/3p43I0zusjI9s8axoKpD09d3C9UeicQ 7kOBHPvCJ42sjRX+aU68ZVwpumznxhL9Rzx5iwQ8HeaXdavlrN3KTszgSuz9X/WfU66O 0jHfSzDqAvkzJKUau1LVYXRA992c/6yDFg1pIMv2m8cv6AKnbIMRNElvOZ3Epqd7xyYP volA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03rGUql2K5aqHorq3wPLVHsSmvcSUPIc3xwfCIAapoCtBPjuBuoJTytD9Pm4r5XYA== X-Received: by 10.99.230.17 with SMTP id g17mr44206635pgh.82.1480369012992; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:36:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161126225617.GW1555@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10756 Archived-At: > On Nov 26, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Rich Felker wrote: >=20 > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:51:05PM +0100, Sebastian Kemper wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 05:24:43PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 10:49:44PM +0100, Sebastian Kemper wrote: >>>> Hello all, >>>>=20 >>>> I'm cross-compiling for OpenWRT/LEDE and have this variable >>>> apr_cv_mutex_robust_shared. Should I set it to yes or no with musl? = I've >>>> searched around but found conflicting infos. One post said there's = no >>>> shared mutex support in musl >>>=20 >>> Do you have a link for that? If there's incorrect information I'd = like >>> to reply and see if it can be corrected. >>=20 >> Hello Rich, >>=20 >> Thank you very much for the reply! >>=20 >> I looked for the link and it turns out it was an error on my part. = The >> post wasn't referring to robust shared mutexes. It was regarding = process >> shared mutexes >>=20 >> = http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016-March/11921= 4.html >>=20 >> It says musl doesn't have process shared mutexes so one should set >> apr_cv_process_shared_works=3Dno. I take it that is correct? >=20 > No, it's incorrect and I have no idea where that idea came from. I'll > ask Khem. >=20 IIRC it was not musl but papering over apr specific issue. I never got = time to really dig in to root cause it.=