Re: futex(2) man page update help request

[Torvald Riegel]

On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 16:46 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 1/16/15, 12:54 PM, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)"
> <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >Color me stupid, but I can't see this in futex_requeue(). Where is that
> >check that is "independent of the requeue type (normal/pi)"?
> >
> >When I look through futex_requeue(), all the likely looking sources
> >of EINVAL are governed by a check on the 'requeue_pi' argument.
> 
> 
> Right, in the non-PI case, I believe there are valid use cases: move to
> the back of the FIFO, for example (OK, maybe the only example?).

But we never guarantee a futex is a FIFO, or do we?  If we don't, then
such a requeue could be implemented as a no-op by the kernel, which
would sort of invalidate the use case.

(And I guess we don't want to guarantee FIFO behavior for futexes.)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/