futex.2: ERRORS: Add ENOSYS case for FUTEX_LOCK_PI and FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI

Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Michael Kerrisk 2015-01-14 12:06:21 +01:00
parent fedaeaf35c
commit a9dcb4d1de
1 changed files with 16 additions and 4 deletions

View File

@ -676,11 +676,13 @@ and
.IR val3 .IR val3
arguments are ignored. arguments are ignored.
.\" FIXME .\" FIXME
.\" > [EOWNERDIED] The owner of the futex died and the kernel made the .\" tglx noted the following "ERROR" case for FUTEX_LOCK_PI and
.\" > caller the new owner. The kernel sets the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit in .\" FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI
.\" > the futex userspace value. Caller is responsible for cleanup .\" > [EOWNERDIED] The owner of the futex died and the kernel made the
.\" > caller the new owner. The kernel sets the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED bit
.\" > in the futex userspace value. Caller is responsible for cleanup
.\" .\"
.\" There is no such thing as an EOWNERDIED error. I had a look .\" However, there is no such thing as an EOWNERDIED error. I had a look
.\" through the kernel source for the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED cases and didn't .\" through the kernel source for the FUTEX_OWNER_DIED cases and didn't
.\" see an obvious error associated with them. Can you clarify? (I think .\" see an obvious error associated with them. Can you clarify? (I think
.\" the point is that this condition, which is described in .\" the point is that this condition, which is described in
@ -895,6 +897,16 @@ but the accompanying operation was neither
nor nor
.BR FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI . .BR FUTEX_WAIT_REQUEUE_PI .
.TP .TP
.BR ENOSYS
.RB ( FUTEX_LOCK_PI ,
.BR FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI )
A run-time check determined that the operation not available.
.BR FUTEX_LOCK_PI
and
.BR FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI
are not implemented on all architectures and
not supported on some CPU variants.
.TP
.BR EPERM .BR EPERM
.RB ( FUTEX_LOCK_PI , .RB ( FUTEX_LOCK_PI ,
.BR FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI ) .BR FUTEX_TRYLOCK_PI )