From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752474AbZJTWv1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:51:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751498AbZJTWv1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:51:27 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:59087 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751072AbZJTWv0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:51:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4ADE3EE9.3090308@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:51:21 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Kacur CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Detect mismatched requeue targets References: <1953271756.544571256071596329.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1953271756.544571256071596329.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org John Kacur wrote: > ----- "Darren Hart" wrote: > >> John Kacur wrote: >>> Hello Darren >>> >>> I took your patch from commit >> 84bc4af59081ee974dd80210e694ab59ebe51ce8 >>> and I tried to git-cherry-pick it for v2.6.31.4-rt14 >>> >>> I had a little merge-commit to resolve. That wasn't too hard, but as >> the >>> code is a bit different between the two versions, I would appreciate >> it if >>> you could review the patch, and make sure that it still makes sense >> for >>> v2.6.31.r-rt14 >> Hi John, >> >> It looks good to me. Where did you have the conflicts? >> >> -- > > The conflict was in the futex_wait_requeue_pi function. > That's where you really need to double check that the logic still makes sense. Hi John, Yes, I suspect the conflict was do to the retry: label. You should have already pulled in the spurious wakeup patch, so you should be fine. The patch looks good to me. Thanks, -- Darren Hart IBM Linux Technology Center Real-Time Linux Team