From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C85E1E1DFA for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740559233; cv=none; b=SbLvHFETEhznqFU/NgRXMC+GSjdeC2/czEUxGdGenN3eYEhsQDdRKqdtjQZRKIiJkN3Suvx1D83xjUjTTgsuNaKWZw4/PVRQmfGMrmhTPJvVJ+iPZdMByaPYdXDv0QhFo7z8pTQjlfq0k22kbCdNJOCvtzNgmZKigEwlLR/DdXs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1740559233; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BFXRlMltLpsJGq1TFtysWuABxzl7LDTPA2W5fyGGy/4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=OuMlj/swMOxcFW8k+RW4XClHibx3hf78DVkvIH6UmeU95vPfYi5PIHPnET8JdCVlDjY+RoWl2afCZa4j7iqAOkQ+RM+4AfPRRmSM8Hu++nLF6xSnCKKIsU+DjUbHtzB+rIG40RVlww8UHrqe8IMsDoCMIivvr63j6q2xnUrKK4I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=PbvPLbqk; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=Skl5oxJL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="PbvPLbqk"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="Skl5oxJL" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 09:40:29 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1740559230; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B2KcQDXl/HfwbqMhaaPuOFbhbYmPrfwlA8REnYAWHWE=; b=PbvPLbqkitSl3BPbnnY41LJfduEsQwGDlT1bapMamKyuoRmyxUpc+rTaycqZasH9bNDIto ugaTIv/AacJX7ec16+8esnAXFNdbiDKXNnx4OuqCES2WRKbX0UdEKXGqHsWh7MrhvygrZf O+RyphLauh02Ej1hlbo9wS2rmOBXQDL/JgYVar/Sczy25LzmNNS8dF5D6vA4U8BC1y5kPq Zzav/l8OfMirZLHF6HqME4lgNKoIj8HcM/L/JVXRDyzT7LVd6RmrlOa+F6uPRqJgL9EoQk 2/qJ4xnqkZlGcwbNiKKH9v5qLlttM/Um7k9QEyAdp4HB/vQF1ZhdtNqV8IIMCw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1740559230; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=B2KcQDXl/HfwbqMhaaPuOFbhbYmPrfwlA8REnYAWHWE=; b=Skl5oxJLhWnVcZq+fYhWU8Dmo2+2+iUss+RGsSOuNi2SK2L1/4jrR/Rr6AIluhhReqkk20 Kyq2hlbD8qFVt5Ag== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?QW5kcsOp?= Almeida , Darren Hart , Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Peter Zijlstra , Valentin Schneider , Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/11] futex: fixup futex_wait_setup [fold futex: Move futex_queue() into futex_wait_setup()] Message-ID: <20250226084029.iGLKxrlv@linutronix.de> References: <20250225170914.289358-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20250225170914.289358-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <878qptf7g9.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878qptf7g9.ffs@tglx> On 2025-02-26 09:15:02 [+0100], Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25 2025 at 18:09, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > we could also make @task a bool signaling it is either NULL or current. > > I have no idea what this change log is trying to tell me. It gives zero > information what this patch is about and the subject line is confusing > at best. This is meant for PeterZ as this should be folded into one of this patches on which this series is built upon. The argument "task" passed to futex_wait_setup() is always current or NULL. The latter is only used by io_uring. So instead getting a task passed and assuming it belongs to the current process we could have a bool and enforce this. The problem would be if things change later on and the passed task does not belong to the current process hierarchy and would not share the same private hash. > Thanks, > > tglx Sebastian