From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <glibc-bugs-return-21406-listarch-glibc-bugs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27173 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2014 02:32:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:glibc-bugs-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:glibc-bugs@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 27105 invoked by uid 48); 11 Feb 2014 02:32:22 -0000
From: "triegel at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug nptl/11588] pthread condvars are not priority inheritance aware
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:32:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: nptl
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.12
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: triegel at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-11588-131-JGP6OJ4IZL@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-11588-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-11588-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00383.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11588

--- Comment #30 from Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Darren Hart from comment #29)
> Torvalds, I believe in our discussions we agreed that the work you are doing
> is orthogonal to this, and while it may impact the same code paths, it was
> best to deal with them as separate efforts and not block one on the other. I
> would be very interested in continuing to follow along on that effort as
> well though.

Yes, it is orthogonal.  It's just that the current implementation, with or
without your fixes, does not fulfill the stronger waiter-signaler requirements
due to the POSIX clarification.  Thus, we'll need to do something about the
latter; but it's no reason to not include your fixes while the latter isn't
ready.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.