lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] futex: do not pagefault_disable in futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic()
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> kernel/futex.c disables page faults before calling
> futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic(), so there is no need to do it again
> within that function.

This seems totally bogus.

Even the comment is crap.

Sure, the callers may disable preemption, but that has NOTHING to do
with "pagefault_disable()". Th epagefault_[en/dis]able functions will
touch the preempt count EVEN IF PREEMPTION ISN'T EVEN ENABLED!

So what the f*ck does that "Note that preemption is disabled.." crap even mean?

The thing is made even worse by the fact that as far as I can tell,
the comment simply isn't true at all (even if you were to ignore the
fundamental confusion about preemption vs the pagefault
disable/enable). Not all callers of futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() do
anything of the sort, whether it's preemptibility _or_ the proper
pagefault_disable/enable(). Just look at the exit_robust_list() ->
handle_futex_death(), for example.

This kind of patch is the kind that personally makes me want to put
you on a spam-list. Misleading commit messages with bogus and
fundamentally incorrect added comments in the code. WTF?

Did I miss some patch that changed that, or is this really as horribly
bad as I think it is? I see it already made it into -tip.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-13 23:51    [W:0.109 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site