lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: futex(2) man page update help request
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 01/16/2015 04:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Thomas,
> >>>
> >>> On 01/15/2015 11:23 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>>>>> [EINVAL] uaddr equal uaddr2. Requeue to same futex.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ??? I added this, but does this error not occur only for PI requeues?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's equally wrong for normal futexes. And its actually the same code
> >>>> checking for this for all variants.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand "equally wrong" in your reply, I'm sorry. Do you
> >>> mean:
> >>>
> >>> a) This error text should be there for both normal and PI requeues
> >>
> >> It is there for both. The requeue code has that check independent of
> >> the requeue type (normal/pi). It never makes sense to requeue
> >> something to itself whether normal or pi futex. We added this for PI,
> >> because there it is harmful, but we did not special case it. So normal
> >> futexes get the same treatment.
> >
> >Hello Thomas,
> >
> >Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that
> >check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"?
> >
> >When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources
> >of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument.
>
>
> Right, in the non-PI case, I believe there are valid use cases: move to
> the back of the FIFO, for example (OK, maybe the only example?). Both
> tests ensuring uaddr1 != uaddr2 are under the requeue_pi conditional
> block. The second compares the keys in case they are not FUTEX_PRIVATE
> (uaddrs would be different, but still the same backing store).
>
> Thomas, am I missing a test for this someplace else?

No, I had a short look at the code misread it. So, yes, it's a valid
operation for the non PI case. Sorry for the confusion.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-19 12:01    [W:0.164 / U:11.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site