Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] futex: fix miss ordered wakeups | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:25:07 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 17:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 07:36 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 07:29 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Daniel, I'm not sure what to think,.. you were told how broken this > > > approach was, you were told to give proper justification for this > > > change. You did neither and just reposted the same old broken shite > > > again. > > > > Broken approach ? Never heard that before, > > I suggest you re-read some of Thomas' emails from last time... > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/12/275
Most of what he's saying there is that it breaks real time, and I provided a real time fix in this set of patches. I don't have a problem with the state mixing, since 99.9% of the time we're dealing operations that don't interact (and it's perfectly ok when they do interact).
> > in fact the problem is > > whether or not the changes are needed (not weather their broken).. I > > gave justification in the last thread, and I'm not sure why it's unclear > > to you.. > > You failed to convince, also justification goes in the changelog, not in > random lkml threads.
It boils down to POSIX compliance which was discussed in the last thread. POSIX requires the waiters to be sorts for 5-10 different API's which ultimately use the futex (most of which aren't at all related to PI).
And yes I can add it to the headers, before it goes up stream.
Daniel
| |