Re: [RFC PATCH] futex: Introduce __vdso_robust_futex_unlock

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>]

On 2026-03-16 19:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> If that's not a sufficient answer for you, may I recommed to look at:
> 
>    https://training.linuxfoundation.org/

Thomas,

Can you have a conversation without constantly belittling those you speak with?

The scenario I raised regarding thread group termination was an act of caution.
While I didn't have the specific implementation details 'paged in' at that exact
moment, asking for clarification on how a proposed solution interacts with complex
kernel behaviors is how we avoid regressions. Suggesting that I lack basic
knowledge or recommending introductory training does nothing to advance the
technical discussion; it is simply an attempt to undermine my expertise.

We have discussed the nature of these interactions privately in the past, but the
behavior persists. In order for any developer to truly engage in these discussions,
there needs to be a baseline of professional trust. When feedback shifts from
technical merits to personal assessments of an interlocutor’s knowledge, the
discussion ceases to be technical.

On a public forum like LKML, the effect of your behavior is to make people unwilling
to provide feedback for fear of being the target of snarky comments. By doing so, you
also prevent people who have useful feedback from communicating it. This makes it
difficult for contributors like me to remain productive members of the community.

The kernel relies on diverse areas of expertise that complement each other. I’d like
us to return to a level of discourse that focuses on the code and the technical
problems we are trying to solve, rather than the person behind the keyboard.

Sincerely,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com