Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262177AbTIHJeu (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2003 05:34:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262168AbTIHJe3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2003 05:34:29 -0400 Received: from mail.jlokier.co.uk ([81.29.64.88]:21391 "EHLO mail.jlokier.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262177AbTIHJdr (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Sep 2003 05:33:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:33:22 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Hugh Dickins , Rusty Russell , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 2] Little fixes to previous futex patch Message-ID: <20030908093322.GA25176@mail.jlokier.co.uk> References: <20030907130017.GA19977@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 716 Lines: 19 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Hugh's patch is clever and subtle. It doesn't exit the loop; the loop > > continues from "next". > > ugh. It would be much cleaner to simply do a list_add() instead of a > list_add_tail(). (the ordering of the queue doesnt matter anyway) Why do you say the order doesn't matter? If you change the order in FUTEX_WAIT & FUTEX_WAKE, then "fair" operations aren't fair any more. Is there a reason why FUTEX_REQUEUE is exempt from this? -- Jamie - 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/