From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 764B83857C77 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:55:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 764B83857C77 From: Kurt Kanzenbach To: Florian Weimer Cc: Adhemerval Zanella , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Carlos O'Donell , Thomas Gleixner , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] nptl: Introduce and use FUTEX_LOCK_PI2 In-Reply-To: <871r8ugxwu.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> References: <20210621111650.1164689-1-kurt@linutronix.de> <87h7hql5qm.fsf@kurt> <871r8ugxwu.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:55:36 +0200 Message-ID: <87eecul1mf.fsf@kurt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:55:40 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Tue Jun 22 2021, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Kurt Kanzenbach: > >> At this point __ASSUME_FUTEX_LOCK_PI2 is false meaning the kernel does >> not have FUTEX_LOCK_PI2 support. But, it calls FUTEX_LOCK_PI2 for >> clockid monotonic. This will result in ENOSYS unless it's an old kernel >> which is patched. Is that intended? > > That's not quite how the __ASSUME_* macros work. If not defined, it > just means that glibc won't assume that the kernel feature is there. It > can still use it (the run-time kernel might have it after all), but > glibc has to check for the feature and has to compile in some sort of > fallback code. OK, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Thanks, Kurt --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJHBAEBCgAxFiEEooWgvezyxHPhdEojeSpbgcuY8KYFAmDRpYgTHGt1cnRAbGlu dXRyb25peC5kZQAKCRB5KluBy5jwpvj9D/4nPiHQ0qJ696agjKzRijwe0LHRweIQ KCJ4YsBVNeZzWQu7srfFHqm+fIN65OGIPt6WdXUOUZAg8CwBTGnMp0u2f2tukRuA fcCrqckkfIN3mmMidlbhWbqZzS3ffWOohGxYrSlxYOQ71JY6iFoVYym7FZBzw7X5 wRgMAKIH5L3RCivlCUaIFyoLKu43c7dCLpc6tXQwAKsfN0Vs66K9RUxIuPhNkQWh p8VtlDsdT6HDdffXeC1Ao4xXSAvUFg4s4a1QJoti06GNCcEimIDs9UDgXgKezo3Z 2axv7NMViislGqY0sCQdRayfJsUYI7SXTuGaoNDkzcJolktuG2aODsqS5orSvN4K T11OiKMbMa5k51ivGtHBJ3zCI2cToAoUicnCuMohLNlLgb4uB7cID65b3vLOQAuM iNu6ePbLuMVIh3TldMRac28gT2CSa3yFs5zuOHUyjPKgGgS0AQwzuqBM6AuqRxTw Rl79HuS+sw8HQijBeQ5EFWCM0BnHuWCez6nPG3jlYK0v+iVy1ghcLydNf6gmFDHQ Z3CXICEyhlkrvceLPdlladg2zu06CERDM4a8xKD/KZSIdwCPqQ/Jsmelj6nmGSlZ YJgEjgE77zErf4SQexYW92uOMSSPbU3Ni+2MG7kgtiFBieVKPwUk7WqBbF1wrwGj IE1XsPmUbrgdVw== =VvXr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--