On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > Since I am not really sure what to do with this futex patch, I will drop it > from the new series that I am about to send now. > > Please let me know what exactly should I do with this patch, as I wrote > previously I really don't understand. As Peter said: > > > Now Thomas would like you to mention the fact that refcount_t doesn't > > > provide the exact same ordering as the atomic_t usages it replaces and > > > I think it would be good if you could hand-wave an argument on why the > > > futex code doesn't care. So if you cannot come with a halfways reasonable argument then at least make it entirely clear that refcount_t is not the same as atomic_t in terms of ordering guarantees and you think that it does not matter but explicitely ask for help from the developers and maintainers to look at it. Thanks, tglx
