From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751599AbcFWR25 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:28:57 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:48786 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751063AbcFWR24 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:28:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:26:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Darren Hart cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Matthieu CASTET , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Darren Hart , Peter Zijlstra , Davidlohr Bueso , Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: futex: Allow FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME with FUTEX_WAIT op In-Reply-To: <20160623161643.GA106079@f23x64.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20160620162652.2c4619c3@perruche.parrot.biz> <20160623044828.GA3379@f23x64.localdomain> <520d203a-83ad-0277-79d5-2209d6853628@gmail.com> <20160623161643.GA106079@f23x64.localdomain> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 03:40:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > In my opinion, we should treat the timeout value as relative for FUTEX_WAIT > regardless of the CLOCK used. Which requires even more changes as you have to select which clock you are using for adding the base time. Thanks, tglx