Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 14:52:23 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>
Cc:     rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@microsoft.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] rust: sync: introduce `CondVar`
Message-ID: <20230330125223.GC124812@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230330043954.562237-1-wedsonaf@gmail.com>
 <20230330043954.562237-12-wedsonaf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230330043954.562237-12-wedsonaf@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:39:53AM -0300, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> From: Wedson Almeida Filho <walmeida@microsoft.com>
> 
> This is the traditional condition variable or monitor synchronisation
> primitive. It is implemented with C's `wait_queue_head_t`.
> 
> It allows users to release a lock and go to sleep while guaranteeing
> that notifications won't be missed. This is achieved by enqueuing a wait
> entry before releasing the lock.
> 

> +/// A conditional variable.
> +///
> +/// Exposes the kernel's [`struct wait_queue_head`] as a condition variable. It allows the caller to
> +/// atomically release the given lock and go to sleep. It reacquires the lock when it wakes up. And
> +/// it wakes up when notified by another thread (via [`CondVar::notify_one`] or
> +/// [`CondVar::notify_all`]) or because the thread received a signal. It may also wake up
> +/// spuriously.

Urgh so wide :-/

But no, threads can *always* and for any reason, have spurious wakeups.

Also, is this hard tied to mutex? If so, you should probably use swait
instead of wait.