Hi,
fredag 22. juli 2005, 23:36, skrev Harald Milz:
since I'm running kernel 2.6.11.4-something (SL92 w/ early release SL93 kernel) on my vdr server, I'd like to understand more of the differences between 26 and 27. 26 requires NPTL to be unset. 27's SVDRP freezes constantly so that vdradmin is unusable (so - it was not streamdev-server as it seems).
Anything else? Just curious.
I'm wondering, what is really causing all this noice about ntpl on this mailing-list.
- What distros are shipping ntpl? - What does ntpl do to the standard posix threading model?
Kenneth
Kenneth Aafløy kenneth@linuxtv.org wrote:
- What distros are shipping ntpl?
i think every latest version of the major distros do so.
- What does ntpl do to the standard posix threading model?
for what i know, ntpl is _more_ standard complient.
clemens
for one nptl i shor fot Native POSIX Thread Library ... so i stands to reason that your standard posix model is not so much posix as you might think. anyway, wikipedia is the way to go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library
Clemens Kirchgatterer clemens@1541.org wrote:
for what i know, ntpl is _more_ standard complient.
AFAIK RH took NPTL out of Enterprise 4, in favor of Linux threads.
lørdag 23. juli 2005, 12:29, skrev Tobias Bartel:
for one nptl i shor fot Native POSIX Thread Library ... so i stands to reason that your standard posix model is not so much posix as you might think. anyway, wikipedia is the way to go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library
Usefull, but it really does not provide any raw facts.
What changed between the pthreads implementation and the nptl that broke vdr so badly?
Kenneth
Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
lørdag 23. juli 2005, 12:29, skrev Tobias Bartel:
for one nptl i shor fot Native POSIX Thread Library ... so i stands to reason that your standard posix model is not so much posix as you might think. anyway, wikipedia is the way to go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library
Usefull, but it really does not provide any raw facts.
What changed between the pthreads implementation and the nptl that broke vdr so badly?
That should be vdr that was(is)n't POSIX thread compliant...
If you are interested there are a projet for tracing NPTL [1] and you could find what broke vdr.
Matthieu
lørdag 23. juli 2005, 21:41, skrev matthieu castet:
Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
lørdag 23. juli 2005, 12:29, skrev Tobias Bartel:
for one nptl i shor fot Native POSIX Thread Library ... so i stands to reason that your standard posix model is not so much posix as you might think. anyway, wikipedia is the way to go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_POSIX_Thread_Library
Usefull, but it really does not provide any raw facts.
What changed between the pthreads implementation and the nptl that broke vdr so badly?
That should be vdr that was(is)n't POSIX thread compliant...
Hu? VDR was made with pthreads in mind, who cares about standards?
If you are interested there are a projet for tracing NPTL [1] and you could find what broke vdr.
Thanks for sharing!
Kenneth
Harald Milz wrote:
Clemens Kirchgatterer clemens@1541.org wrote:
for what i know, ntpl is _more_ standard complient.
AFAIK RH took NPTL out of Enterprise 4, in favor of Linux threads.
Not true, more on the contrary:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/release-notes/as... "While most threaded applications were not impacted by the introduction of NPTL, applications that relied on those semantics of LinuxThreads that were contrary to the POSIX specification would not operate correctly. As noted at the time of NPTL's introduction, Red Hat recommended that such applications be updated so that they complied with POSIX (and could therefore use NPTL.)
While support for LinuxThreads still exists for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, this statement serves as advance notice that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 will no longer include support for LinuxThreads. Therefore, applications that require LinuxThreads support must be updated before they will be able to work properly on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 system."
Johannes
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Harald Milz wrote:
Clemens Kirchgatterer clemens@1541.org wrote:
for what i know, ntpl is _more_ standard complient.
AFAIK RH took NPTL out of Enterprise 4, in favor of Linux threads.
Not true, more on the contrary:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/release-notes/as...
Fedora Core 5 will also drop LinuxThreads support:
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/
"Important
FC5 will not have LinuxThreads support and all programs have to be converted to use NPTL by then."
Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
lørdag 23. juli 2005, 21:41, skrev matthieu castet:
That should be vdr that was(is)n't POSIX thread compliant...
Hu? VDR was made with pthreads in mind, who cares about standards?
I'm not sure what to make out of this statement. (What does the "p" in pthread mean?)
If you are interested there are a projet for tracing NPTL [1] and you could find what broke vdr.
Thanks for sharing!
You'll be thrilled to know that there even is a "NPTL Stabilization Project": http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2005/view_abstract.php?content_key=45 http://nptl.bullopensource.org/
Johannes
Anssi Hannula wrote:
Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
Harald Milz wrote:
Clemens Kirchgatterer clemens@1541.org wrote:
for what i know, ntpl is _more_ standard complient.
AFAIK RH took NPTL out of Enterprise 4, in favor of Linux threads.
Not true, more on the contrary:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/release-notes/as...
Fedora Core 5 will also drop LinuxThreads support:
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc4/
"Important
FC5 will not have LinuxThreads support and all programs have to be converted to use NPTL by then."
And it won't be supported for 2.4 series of glibc ( http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2005-07/msg00001.html ).
Johannes Stezenbach js@linuxtv.org wrote:
Harald Milz wrote:
AFAIK RH took NPTL out of Enterprise 4, in favor of Linux threads.
Not true, more on the contrary: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/release-notes/as...
You're right - I was misinformed by somebody who I assumed should know better. Sorry for the confusion.
søndag 24. juli 2005, 20:22, skrev Johannes Stezenbach:
Kenneth Aafløy wrote:
lørdag 23. juli 2005, 21:41, skrev matthieu castet:
That should be vdr that was(is)n't POSIX thread compliant...
Hu? VDR was made with pthreads in mind, who cares about standards?
I'm not sure what to make out of this statement. (What does the "p" in pthread mean?)
Well, pthreads, as in LinuxThreads :)
If you are interested there are a projet for tracing NPTL [1] and you could find what broke vdr.
Thanks for sharing!
You'll be thrilled to know that there even is a "NPTL Stabilization Project": http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2005/view_abstract.php?content_key=45 http://nptl.bullopensource.org/
I'm still unable to figure out what changes the NPTL will force on the LinuxThreads implementation.
Kenneth
søndag 24. juli 2005, 20:14, skrev Johannes Stezenbach:
Harald Milz wrote:
Clemens Kirchgatterer clemens@1541.org wrote:
for what i know, ntpl is _more_ standard complient.
AFAIK RH took NPTL out of Enterprise 4, in favor of Linux threads.
Not true, more on the contrary:
[snip]
Yup, I was informed about this!
kenneth.
-
Anssi Hannula -
Clemens Kirchgatterer -
Harald Milz -
Johannes Stezenbach -
Kenneth Aafløy -
matthieu castet -
Tobias Bartel