[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1604031155580.3978@nanos>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:57:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 4/7] futex: Add support for attached futexes
On Sat, 2 Apr 2016, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 04/02/2016 04:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> [omitted due to some Thunderbird bug, sigh]
>
> What happens if you mix attached an non-attached ops on the same futex?
Not much. You might get an error code, sleep forever or the call will just
result in a NOP wasting cpu cycles. That's the same when you mix
shared/private operations on the same futex.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists