Re: futex(2) man page update help request
From: Torvald Riegel <hidden>
Date: 2015-01-23 18:20:28
Also in:
linux-api, lkml
From: Torvald Riegel <hidden>
Date: 2015-01-23 18:20:28
Also in:
linux-api, lkml
On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 16:46 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
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?).
But we never guarantee a futex is a FIFO, or do we? If we don't, then such a requeue could be implemented as a no-op by the kernel, which would sort of invalidate the use case. (And I guess we don't want to guarantee FIFO behavior for futexes.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html