Re: [PATCH] FUTEX: one more return .

On 2/16/06, Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Continue the theme of returns .

No, that's wrong.  I got Ingo to remove this code and he documented it:

=====
- race fix: do not bail out in the list walk when the list_op_pending
   pointer cannot be followed by the kernel - another userspace thread
   may have already destroyed the mutex (and unmapped it), before this
   thread had a chance to clear the field.
=====
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] FUTEX: one more return .
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] FUTEX: one more return .
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/8] block: convert IDE to use blk_kmap helpers
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/4] s390: fix preempt_count of idle thread with cpu hotplug
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] FUTEX: one more return .
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] FUTEX: one more return .
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]