* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the issue is this: your fix reduces the effects of the bug but it is
> > still fundamentally incomplete because of the use of timer_list. So
>
> But using schedule_timeout is not a bug. Userspace timeouts are always
> defined to be "at least".
but what you are adding isnt a plain schedule_timeout(), it is a restart
block handling loop. And for those restart blocks that relate to
timeouts, we only use hrtimers. I am not making this up to annoy you:
take a look at all the current restart block handlers - they are hrtimer
based, for exactly this reason.
> > instead of trying to fix the bug the wrong way, please try to fix it
> > the right way, ontop of an already existing and tested patch, ok?
> > That also enables the other neat stuff Thomas talked about.
>
> Well that's nice, but I have a bugfix here which probably needs to get
> backported to stable kernels and distro kernels.
yes but your patch already exists for them which they can pick up.
really, this is a common Linux principle: fix it completely and fix it
the right way. You are applying it yourself on a daily basis when having
the maintainer hat on =B-)
> It should be just as easy to rebase the hrtimer patch on top of my
> fix. Considering that you've had it for a year, I don't think it needs
> to be added right before my fix.
your latest patch looks quite kludgy, exactly due to the issues that
were mentioned.
> > hm. I'm wondering how this wasnt noticed sooner - this futex_wait
> > behavior has been there for like forever.
>
> People ignore LTP test failures, and programs probably try to avoid
> exercising the nuances of the unix signal API, I guess.
then there's no rush and lets do this the right way, ok?
Ingo
-
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/
