* Clint Adams:
>> But you wouldn't object to a patch in principle, right?
>
> Nope.
There seems to be a problem: The on-disk lock region format changes.
This means that it's not worth the trouble, I guess.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
> But you wouldn't object to a patch in principle, right?
Nope.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Clint Adams:
>> It would be desirable to add NPTL versions of the DSOs. The NPTL
>> cross-process mutexes are more scalable than Berkeley DB's approach.
>> (Traditional POSIX mutexes, before NPTL, are single-process, that's why
>> they are needed.)
>
> When the Debian glibc packages drop LinuxT
> It would be desirable to add NPTL versions of the DSOs. The NPTL
> cross-process mutexes are more scalable than Berkeley DB's approach.
> (Traditional POSIX mutexes, before NPTL, are single-process, that's why
> they are needed.)
When the Debian glibc packages drop LinuxThreads support entirely
4 matches
Mail list logo
