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-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
