1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. [PATCH 0/4] sched.7 and small futex.2 updates
  4. View patch

[PATCH 3/4] man/man2/futex.2: Recycle two gmane URLs

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior posted 4 patches 1 month ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH 3/4] man/man2/futex.2: Recycle two gmane URLs
Posted by Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 1 month ago 
Based on the date in the comment, the here provided URLs should point to
the mails that the gmane URL no longer can.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 man/man2/futex.2 | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/man2/futex.2 b/man/man2/futex.2
index 69df4036ada7f..027e91b826bf1 100644
--- a/man/man2/futex.2
+++ b/man/man2/futex.2
@@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
 .\"
 .\" FIXME Still to integrate are some points from Torvald Riegel's mail of
 .\" 2015-01-23:
-.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=7977
+.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037788.29655.0.camel@triegel.csb
 .\"
 .\" FIXME Do we need to add some text regarding Torvald Riegel's 2015-01-24 mail
-.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=1873242
+.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422105142.29655.16.camel@triegel.csb
 .\"
 .TH futex 2 (date) "Linux man-pages (unreleased)"
 .SH NAME
-- 
2.51.0
Re: [PATCH 3/4] man/man2/futex.2: Recycle two gmane URLs
Posted by Alejandro Colomar 1 month ago 
Hi Sebastian,

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 06:01:59PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Based on the date in the comment, the here provided URLs should point to
> the mails that the gmane URL no longer can.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

Thanks!  I've applied the patch.
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/src/alx/linux/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?h=contrib&id=2f5536dd43eaffdcb2bf00addf71aac4596c7f8c>
(use port 80).


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> ---
>  man/man2/futex.2 | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man2/futex.2 b/man/man2/futex.2
> index 69df4036ada7f..027e91b826bf1 100644
> --- a/man/man2/futex.2
> +++ b/man/man2/futex.2
> @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
>  .\"
>  .\" FIXME Still to integrate are some points from Torvald Riegel's mail of
>  .\" 2015-01-23:
> -.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=7977
> +.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037788.29655.0.camel@triegel.csb
>  .\"
>  .\" FIXME Do we need to add some text regarding Torvald Riegel's 2015-01-24 mail
> -.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=1873242
> +.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422105142.29655.16.camel@triegel.csb
>  .\"
>  .TH futex 2 (date) "Linux man-pages (unreleased)"
>  .SH NAME
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
Use port 80 (that is, <...:80/>).
Re: [PATCH 3/4] man/man2/futex.2: Recycle two gmane URLs
Posted by Carlos O'Donell 1 month ago 
On 8/29/25 12:01 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Based on the date in the comment, the here provided URLs should point to
> the mails that the gmane URL no longer can.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> ---
>   man/man2/futex.2 | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man2/futex.2 b/man/man2/futex.2
> index 69df4036ada7f..027e91b826bf1 100644
> --- a/man/man2/futex.2
> +++ b/man/man2/futex.2
> @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
>   .\"
>   .\" FIXME Still to integrate are some points from Torvald Riegel's mail of
>   .\" 2015-01-23:
> -.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=7977
> +.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037788.29655.0.camel@triegel.csb

Wrong link?

Should be this link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037145.27573.0.camel@triegel.csb/

Where the discussion is about the unresolved constraint to guarantee FIFO order.

>   .\"
>   .\" FIXME Do we need to add some text regarding Torvald Riegel's 2015-01-24 mail
> -.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=1873242
> +.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422105142.29655.16.camel@triegel.csb

Confirmed, this is correct.

>   .\"
>   .TH futex 2 (date) "Linux man-pages (unreleased)"
>   .SH NAME


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.
Re: [PATCH 3/4] man/man2/futex.2: Recycle two gmane URLs
Posted by Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 1 month ago 
On 2025-08-29 12:43:26 [-0400], Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > index 69df4036ada7f..027e91b826bf1 100644
> > --- a/man/man2/futex.2
> > +++ b/man/man2/futex.2
> > @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
> >   .\"
> >   .\" FIXME Still to integrate are some points from Torvald Riegel's mail of
> >   .\" 2015-01-23:
> > -.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=7977
> > +.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037788.29655.0.camel@triegel.csb
> 
> Wrong link?
> 
> Should be this link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037145.27573.0.camel@triegel.csb/
> 
> Where the discussion is about the unresolved constraint to guarantee FIFO order.

I thought it is the longer email, the second that day, where he made
three points. Didn't read it (yet)…

Now FIFO ordering you say. Is it glibc's side or kernel side? The kernel
sorts the futex waiters according their (task's) priority. It is not
FIFO unless the tasks are of equal priority.
So a futex requeue will take the task with the highest priority from
uaddr1 and move it to uaddr2.

Sebastian
Re: [PATCH 3/4] man/man2/futex.2: Recycle two gmane URLs
Posted by Carlos O'Donell 1 month ago 
On 8/29/25 1:39 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2025-08-29 12:43:26 [-0400], Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> index 69df4036ada7f..027e91b826bf1 100644
>>> --- a/man/man2/futex.2
>>> +++ b/man/man2/futex.2
>>> @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@
>>>    .\"
>>>    .\" FIXME Still to integrate are some points from Torvald Riegel's mail of
>>>    .\" 2015-01-23:
>>> -.\"       http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1703405/focus=7977
>>> +.\"       https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037788.29655.0.camel@triegel.csb
>>
>> Wrong link?
>>
>> Should be this link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1422037145.27573.0.camel@triegel.csb/
>>
>> Where the discussion is about the unresolved constraint to guarantee FIFO order.
> 
> I thought it is the longer email, the second that day, where he made
> three points. Didn't read it (yet)…

Given the dates and the disjoint set of topics, my suggestion is the link above.

> Now FIFO ordering you say. Is it glibc's side or kernel side? The kernel
> sorts the futex waiters according their (task's) priority. It is not
> FIFO unless the tasks are of equal priority.

The FIFO order question was a kernel-side question wrt futex semantics.
At least that's how I read the thread. And the issue was resolved, but possibly
not documented. Documentation might include stating "FIFO ordering over all
waiters, or even a subset of waiters (at the same priority level) is not
guaranteed."

Torvald was right that for POSIX condition variables we would naturally want
a FIFO wake order so earlier sleepers are woken first.

> So a futex requeue will take the task with the highest priority from
> uaddr1 and move it to uaddr2.

Right.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.