[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <131a59af-a625-27b3-433e-ff8b7c36753e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 12:31:48 +0100
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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
On 6/5/21 1:43 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Andres,
>
> On Thu, Jun 03 2021 at 12:03, 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.
>
> feedback on what?
>
> There is absolutely no description of design and obviously there is no
> use case either. So what do you expect me to be generous about?
That's a complete fallacy, the very RFC is about clarifying a
use case that I was hinted about, not mentioning those I described
you in a reply. Obviously
--
Pavel Begunkov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists