[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] futex: do not pagefault_disable in futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic()
I have to apologize. These landed right as I was leaving for OSTS and
I didn't have time to review them properly. I wondered about the
preempt vs pagefault disable and wondered how exit_robust_list() was
covered in Michel's comments (perhaps somewhere higher up the call
chain). I leaned on the review of others when I should have raised the
questions even if I didn't have the time to dig into them myself.
Linus shouldn't have had to raise those questions, I'll do better at
this in the future.

I noticed that my name is the only one in futex.c with an email
address in the header - that email address is no longer valid, and it
delayed the patches getting to my inbox - I will submit a patch to fix
that. I should catch them sooner now, regardless, with improved LKML


Darren Hart

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Michel Lespinasse <> 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

Darren Hart
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-14 01:57    [W:0.125 / U:1.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site