Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262423AbTESLgT (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 07:36:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262426AbTESLgT (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 07:36:19 -0400 Received: from phoenix.mvhi.com ([195.224.96.167]:56849 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262423AbTESLgQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 07:36:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:49:10 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [patch] futex requeueing feature, futex-requeue-2.5.69-D3 Message-ID: <20030519124910.C8868@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rusty Russell , Ulrich Drepper References: <20030519111028.B8663@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from mingo@elte.hu on Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:16:02PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1412 Lines: 32 On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > sure, i'm all for it, but in a different pass, and after syncing up with > glibc. An API cleanup like this should have been done upon the > introduction of futexes, why didnt you comment on this then? Splitting off > FUTEX_REQUEUE in isolation is quite pointless. Maybe I don't spend all my time watching the futex API? :) Okay, let's make a deal, you add a new syscall for this case and I'll fix up the older ones in a patch that's ontop of yours? > > > + case FUTEX_REQUEUE: > > > + pos_in_page2 = uaddr2 % PAGE_SIZE; > > > + > > > + /* Must be "naturally" aligned */ > > > + if (pos_in_page2 % sizeof(u32)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > Who guarantess that the alignment of u32 is always the same as it's size? > > glibc. We do not want to handle all the misaligned cases for obvious > reasons. The use of u32 (instead of a native word) is a bit unfortunate on > 64-bit systems but now a reality. Sorry if the question wasn't clear, but who guarantess that the alignment of u32 is the same as it's size? You test of the size of u32, not it's alignment even if they usually are the same. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/