linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/4] io_uring: implement futex wait

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:21:15 -0700
From:   "Andres Freund" <andres@...razel.de>
To:     "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Pavel Begunkov" <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Darren Hart" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        "Davidlohr Bueso" <dave@...olabs.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] io_uring: implement futex wait

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, at 14:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 12:03:38PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2021-06-01 23:53:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > You surely made your point that this is well thought out.
> > 
> > Really impressed with your effort to generously interpret the first
> > version of a proof of concept patch that explicitly was aimed at getting
> > feedback on the basic design and the different use cases.
> 
> You *completely* failed to describe any. I'm with tglx; I see no reason
> to even look at the patches. If you don't have a problem, you don't need
> a solution.

Note that this is not my patch, and I hadn't posted anything on the thread when Thomas sent that email? So I'm not sure what you're even referring to here as me having failed to do. If you think the explanation of my use cases I have since sent is insufficient, I'm happy to reply to that/expand on them, but you're going to have to be a bit more specific on why I "failed to describe any".

I just don't see why a simple "what's the use case" wouldn't be a lot more productive than this posturing. Particularly on a thread that is explicitly inviting people from outside the core kernel dev community to chime in.

Andres