[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 11:43:20 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 58/64] futex: Clarify comment in futex_requeue()
On Thu, 05 Aug 2021, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
>The comment about the restriction of the number of waiters to wake for the
>REQUEUE_PI case is confusing at best. Rewrite it.
This certainly reads better.
>
>Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>---
> kernel/futex.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>---
>--- a/kernel/futex.c
>+++ b/kernel/futex.c
>@@ -1960,15 +1960,27 @@ static int futex_requeue(u32 __user *uad
> */
> if (refill_pi_state_cache())
> return -ENOMEM;
Perhaps this can be moved after the nr_wake check below? No sense
in calling refill_pi_state_cache() if the user is passing bogus
parameters.
> if (nr_wake != 1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists