From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61AD024337B for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 14:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771253422; cv=none; b=mL1WBuAW79uGW16Y0OIohs4twUArtLkRLwEKdZfa+8DY7l32MDqHFEXd5xn9IEJn1n3JCj4ZafQWzUTc8472ZEEs8ZN8om+g4v18GF1Ce8HbBH7Yf8fojHCecpOk6/ZxYZ2I/WW4Nhol7AuifjMsC3X67Z326DXQNVvW68C4QY4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1771253422; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZzTOi0uraQ3NOKoDVOjrLrGyoMQ/7lZ4E8hPOd6PIF8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sv/XBYK4C8Wt6ipbtZyAfJpjr1hqRQGaAzi0YdE0pF/oHDFLJwNFKpG5wTND0dn9b9WoH3gieR6MnVGpEygHdl0vzPLLTv3w/XnJ9fczvAN/f9oabU6QFnFHFMKkWkDgxtyD/1jMIV5JJhP25Y8EQdF/nXz5XD5MLZdOZtYwb4M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Zuehgn+A; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Zuehgn+A" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57F09C116C6; Mon, 16 Feb 2026 14:50:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1771253422; bh=ZzTOi0uraQ3NOKoDVOjrLrGyoMQ/7lZ4E8hPOd6PIF8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Zuehgn+A/MC4SLnYyuV64sQx007ctl9yH9n2AP7lPixO1vGvLfG+Ge7/WjGhltZaq osZgicd0dXDM3ciIcMSnQXWXSJnOa2lET6GQ+uL4A6WolWWaWJ6ZSwrH3Vuub7ntfa AHxesBDMnetN7yHJ4zOew1TPAbQ7o54oU7G81RqddoXzikXWMA6CyEvbs+/mBiVtUq qq4sxE8RsJihrVaVfkySlY85/fmYbJ9OW1oUz16Je7Um5DnIcRQ6sXT7I2z7lwirnO Fpmj7AzzemdTuoSzJ74AF+zr4OGIH6WipWkftfXtKNhYXNq+zXIy7e7MObK7fxwGWw XMieGrkM8xPxA== Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 15:50:18 +0100 From: Alejandro Colomar To: =?utf-8?B?0L3QsNCx?= Cc: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] futex_waitv.2: new page Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5lfkc7rujsgbqtjq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --5lfkc7rujsgbqtjq Content-Type: text/plain; protected-headers=v1; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Alejandro Colomar To: =?utf-8?B?0L3QsNCx?= Cc: linux-man@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] futex_waitv.2: new page Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Hi, On 2026-02-16T15:20:49+0100, =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=B1 wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 01:32:29AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On 2026-02-15T20:00:50+0100, =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=B1 wrote: > > > +struct futex_waitv { > > > + u64 val; /* Expected value at \f[I]uaddr\f[] */ > > Should we say at .uaddr[0] to be more precise? > I think in general it's between "of *pointer" or "at pointer", > and "Expected value of .uaddr[0]/*.uaddr" read really poorly to me. >=20 > > > +This operation tests that the values at the > > > +futex words pointed to by the addresses > > > +.IR waiters []. uaddr > >=20 > > Should we maybe say?: > >=20 > > futex words > > .IR waiters []. uaddr [0] >=20 > It does read unwieldy, but I think that's too cut-down... >=20 > futex words at > .IR waiters []. uaddr I prefer "futex words pointed to by the addresses" over "futex words at". My point was that the explicit [0] might be more readable. >=20 >=20 > > > +If the NUMA word is > > > +.BR FUTEX_NO_NODE , > > > +the node number of the processor the syscall executes on is written = to it. > > > +(Except in an > > Maybe 'Except that' would be easier to read? > I don't think that works, but maybe "Except for an"... Sorry; I didn't explain myself well. I meant 'Except that in an'. >=20 > Scissor-patch below. >=20 > Best, > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH v11] futex_waitv.2: new page >=20 > Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemia=C5=84ska > --- > Range-diff against v10: > 1: 267b3c008 ! 1: 39abafa84 futex_waitv.2: new page [...] > @@ man/man2/futex_waitv.2 (new) > +If the NUMA word is > +.BR FUTEX_NO_NODE , > +the node number of the processor the syscall executes on is written= to it. > -+(Except in an > ++(Except for an I would still insert the omitted 'that' here. I have no preference regarding 'for' vs 'in'. > +.B EINVAL > +or > +.B EFAULT [...] Have a lovely day! Alex --=20 --5lfkc7rujsgbqtjq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEES7Jt9u9GbmlWADAi64mZXMKQwqkFAmmTLqAACgkQ64mZXMKQ wqlkvA//W8pnbnyn/oUNq0Ga+YolOU4xV0fqE/+m/7x9mXIp/pVyDPPg//4dxiTe Wv8WAdCWe7KyrAFHH6ErAtoUqpAGtMGl+SchcEnIPfEyJbhjHQvymoITWLi21kmM +lYdiL7H4hbGo7mJfbXF4CUkAHonl41d/e5MQBK8VBn/NQO/aafeoT0dIpSvG8lM sR9wOpOuOQjZU2W4wzqs5I39/sE3i8xTvgohH8MHF3wOpuOYC3wVwTU26aGRsL+J vS3Eo/ZEXNd/nB9XB2W5E1vyoeDfzYcPXN7Vrga3w/cECZP9F6KqoyTADaPyJRwI 9dy7k2yowsDaNNYV5rFxF5HAFfcvXgNgMm7QUI9GXeHcIUYvM3HODtgLQJ79f0Md tukOBhObu4FgS9dw6c1JQf4pqtI6MzVEMTKoxNGbgiI21jD5QShN5DHEFBhHM5U1 Leg6XKYXqtBY88j8sy1BTae9RaahPOnc3x6g7cRILNvXQ2gL5mQxtLGpfW+DG9VQ OgNxuaO5b/h274OSD8cfTIwRbM7kfRqWxa5/64iSL/M0WmOIcXRTY2NAUxP/dezL fwYsURQoh/QXXXxyFByW8hQec2FMiq+hIFEcNhfG2lkJ4gjeekLBW0a8ObXcr7PH DEZWBMAaXhucJ8xQqqQ8l4876cqZnfhqsun3tktjQeSKznFNtZ8= =O8AK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5lfkc7rujsgbqtjq--