On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:19:41AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > So any code which does not handle a spurious wakeup is broken
> > independent of the futex changes. So really nothing to worry about.
>
> Back when we did this:
>
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1109.1/01941.html
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1109.1/01943.html
>
> Things came apart -- notably sysvsems.
>
> And yes its true that anything not dealing with spuriuos wakups is
> borken, but there's still quite a lot of borken out there, although I
> think we fixed all the really common ones.
>
> But if we decide we want to go do this, I'd propose we reintroduce this
> delayed wake list thing again.
Indeed. Forgot about that completely.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
