From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I1FjT-0001Kv-3s
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:01:27 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I1FjS-0001KZ-MZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:01:26 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1FjS-0001KW-Gv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:01:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <jakub@redhat.com>) id 1I1FjR-00045Y-Va
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:01:26 -0400
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:01:21 -0400
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix TLS support on x86
Message-ID: <20070621060120.GO4033@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
References: <46696500.5020406@suse.de> <20070618192139.GK19155@networkno.de>
	<467958F6.2070804@suse.de>
	<1182403868.2782.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1182403868.2782.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:31:07PM +0800, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 18:42 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > implements futexes (this is mostly done by David Woodhouse as well,
> > FUTEX_WAKE_OP done by me)
> 
> #ifdef BSWAP_NEEDED, only FUTEX_OP_CMP_EQ and FUTEX_OP_CMP_NE will work
> as expected. If we want to do the rest then we'll need to implement
> FUTEX_OP_CMP_LT_WRONGENDIAN &c in the kernel.
> 
> Or maybe, since we don't do set_robust_list (and would need wrong-endian
> support in the kernel for that too), we can assume that it's all
> in-process, and hence all _within_ qemu, and we could actually implement
> the futex stuff entirely within qemu with qemu's own locking?
> 
> For now I think the safer option is just to leave FUTEX_WAKE_OP
> unimplemented. Jakub, what do you think?

FUTEX_WAKE_OP is just an optimization and the only op glibc uses is
FUTEX_OP_CLEAR_WAKE_IF_GT_ONE, so something that would need kernel help.
But all glibcs so far if syscall (SYS_futex, ... FUTEX_WAKE_OP, ...)
fails just fall back to syscall (SYS_futex, ... FUTEX_WAKE, ...) +
unlock.

So I think it is safe to leave FUTEX_WAKE_OP not supported for BSWAP_NEEDED.

	Jakub