On Sat, 4 Apr 2020, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 03/04/20(Fri) 19:26, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > Depending on the operation requested futex(2) might return the number of
> > > woken threads or an error. That means the following...
> > >
> > > mpv
> The real problem is that futex(2) is actually 3 different syscalls wrapped
> into one. It was split into three then kdump could properly report
> futex_wake(2) and futex_requeue(2) as returning a count, while
> futex_wait(2) returns an errno. The existing 'switch' in sys_futex()
> would
On 03/04/20(Fri) 19:26, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Depending on the operation requested futex(2) might return the number of
> > woken threads or an error. That means the following...
> >
> > mpv CALL
> > futex(0xa58935899b0,0x82,1,0,0)
> > mpv
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Depending on the operation requested futex(2) might return the number of
> woken threads or an error. That means the following...
>
> mpv CALL futex(0xa58935899b0,0x82,1,0,0)
> mpv RET futex -1 errno 1 Operation not permitted
>
> ...is
Depending on the operation requested futex(2) might return the number of
woken threads or an error. That means the following...
mpv CALL futex(0xa58935899b0,0x82,1,0,0)
mpv RET futex -1 errno 1 Operation not permitted
...is not an error but it indicates that 1 thread has been
