On 2017-05-11 11:54:47 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This is the same patch that Thomas wrote, right? Shouldn't this start
> with:
>
> From: Thomas Gleixner
>
> ?
correct. It made its way properly into the patch queue, I just managed
to get it wrong while sending it to
On 2017-05-11 11:54:47 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This is the same patch that Thomas wrote, right? Shouldn't this start
> with:
>
> From: Thomas Gleixner
>
> ?
correct. It made its way properly into the patch queue, I just managed
to get it wrong while sending it to the list…
> -- Steve
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:20:54 +0200
Sebastian Sewior wrote:
This is the same patch that Thomas wrote, right? Shouldn't this start
with:
From: Thomas Gleixner
?
-- Steve
> RT has a problem when the wait on a futex/rtmutex got interrupted by a
>
On Thu, 11 May 2017 17:20:54 +0200
Sebastian Sewior wrote:
This is the same patch that Thomas wrote, right? Shouldn't this start
with:
From: Thomas Gleixner
?
-- Steve
> RT has a problem when the wait on a futex/rtmutex got interrupted by a
> timeout or a signal. task->pi_blocked_on is
RT has a problem when the wait on a futex/rtmutex got interrupted by a
timeout or a signal. task->pi_blocked_on is still set when returning from
rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(). The task must acquire the hash bucket lock
after this.
If the hash bucket lock is contended then the
RT has a problem when the wait on a futex/rtmutex got interrupted by a
timeout or a signal. task->pi_blocked_on is still set when returning from
rt_mutex_wait_proxy_lock(). The task must acquire the hash bucket lock
after this.
If the hash bucket lock is contended then the
6 matches
Mail list logo