[ELDK] glibc change for eldk 3.1.1

[Levend Sayar]

Hi, Detlev.

Yes you are right. pthread_mutex_* functions are available in LinuxThreads. Indeed, we are using that pthread functions in our 
tcp/ip server on ppc also.
But that mutexes can be used for intra process synchronization, namely between threads.

You can build BerkeleyDB+openldap with ELDK 3.1.1. But when you run them, BerkeleyDB says "function not implemented". Since it needs 
inter process
synchronization. I think POSIX pthread standard talks about mutexes which can be used inter process synchronization, but 
LinuxThreads implementaion of pthreads does not have this kind of mutex.
I suspect NPTL has. Even if I could add NPTL support, maybe the result would be same for openldap.

BerkeleyDB needs synchronization between multi processes. Its configure script says many alternatives for --with-mutex switch such 
as

POSIX/pthreads
POSIX/pthreads/private
POSIX/pthreads/library
POSIX/pthreads/library/private
Solaris/lwp
UI/threads
UI/threads/library
68K/gcc-assembly
AIX/_check_lock
Darwin/_spin_lock_try
ALPHA/gcc-assembly
ARM/gcc-assembly
HP/msem_init
HPPA/gcc-assembly
ia64/gcc-assembly
MIPS/gcc-assembly
PPC/gcc-assembly
ReliantUNIX/initspin
S390/cc-assembly
S390/gcc-assembly
SCO/x86/cc-assembly
SGI/init_lock
Solaris/_lock_try
*Solaris/_lock_try/membar
*Sparc/gcc-assembly
Tru64/cc-assembly
UNIX/msem_init
UNIX/sema_init
UTS/cc-assembly
*x86/gcc-assembly
*x86_64/gcc-assembly
UNIX/fcntl
win32
win32/gcc

I tried many but the result does not change too much.

So my question turns to "is there any one running openldap on ppc using 2.4 kernel ?"

_lvnd_
 (^_^)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Detlev Zundel" <dzu at denx.de>
To: "Wolfgang Denk" <wd at denx.de>
Cc: "Levend Sayar" <levend.sayar at karel.com.tr>; <eldk at lists.denx.de>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ELDK] glibc change for eldk 3.1.1


> Hi Wolfgang,
>
>>> I thought that Posix Pthread implementation of NPTL would be better
>>> than LinuxThreads. So I tried what I said before.
>
> Yes, the NPTL implementation is superior to the LinuxThreads
> implementation.  To give one example, POSIX demands that all threads
> have the same process id.  This is not the case with LinuxThreads.
>
> But on the other hand, LinuxThreads also implements mutexes so for your
> original problem it might be interesting to find out _why_ exactly
> OpenLDAP thinks that LinuxThreads does not support mutexes.
>
>> There is either pthread, which has nothing to do with NPTL, or NPTL.
>> If you want NPTL, then you go for a LInux 2.6 kernel.  There is no way
>> around this.
>
> Well actually both LinuxThreads and NPTL implement the posix thread API
> - pthread for short.
>
> Cheers
>  Detlev
>
> -- 
> Soon in a source code repository near you.
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich,  Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: dzu at denx.de