From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753017AbaELXSU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 19:18:20 -0400 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.232]:27533 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752642AbaELXSS (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 19:18:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 19:18:14 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Dave Jones , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Darren Hart , Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , Clark Williams , Paul McKenney , Lai Jiangshan , Roland McGrath , Carlos ODonell , Jakub Jelinek , Michael Kerrisk , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] futex/rtmutex: Fix issues exposed by trinity Message-ID: <20140512191814.086b15cd@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20140512190438.314125476@linutronix.de> <20140512173705.0bbdb675@gandalf.local.home> <20140512180839.2eb18000@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:37:21 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 12 May 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I did admit I made a mistake. If you read the rest of my email that you > > cut off, I said "Sure, I should have pushed Lai for that at the time. > > Lessons learned. I was expecting he would do so after we got to a final > > version of the patch but I was also working on other things at the time > > and forgot to remind him." > > > > I even stated that I'm doing better now. That means I have learned from > > my mistakes. And continue to do so. > > Sure, with your latest multi reader patches you break even the compile > with CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES=y due to: > > + debug_rt_mutex_print_deadlock(waiter); > > I'm really impressed by your improvements. > Really Thomas? You are judging my work flow with a patch that I posted as RFC hoping to get benchmarks from, which I've only received a few for, and I'm hoping to get more. I've never posted that patch for inclusion, because it does need more testing and even needs more cleaning up. I only posted it hoping to get numbers to know if it is worth pursuing or not. I even tell Clark not to use it as it is not ready for prime time yet. And because you have never even acknowledged that patch until now, I've pretty much considered it dead. -- Steve