[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YL4Hiq+2rMGYrQAH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:48:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
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
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:31:48PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> 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
Then consider this:
Nacked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
for anything touching futex.c, until such time that you can provide a
coherent description of what and why you're doing things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists