This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove arm lowlevellock.c
- From: Bernie Ogden <bernie dot ogden at linaro dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, "libc-ports at sourceware dot org" <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 14:02:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove arm lowlevellock.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CALE0ps2nxAqHeotsxVcBEOV+nRsFGLBLD8+kP2ZY-PdnELkueA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CANu=Dmjz96Nk-C0xWOdO-xDWzt=+Z7u6OrsYJehcB_Y0T7B=ag at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1404291523380 dot 6770 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CALE0ps2q-jXh+p-_70jG8EvyWSB39uBmy6N=kjfn2xihppi95w at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1404301546250 dot 30561 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
Raised BZ 16892 for the lowlevellock.h issues.
Thanks for the pointer.
On 30 April 2014 16:49, Joseph S. Myers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Bernie Ogden wrote:
>> The workaround is that some of the arm lowlevellock.c functions
>> promote futex to 2 if it is 1. Generic lowlevellock.c always promotes
>> futex to 2. Hence, removing arm's lowlevellock.c doesn't cause a
>> regression in this sense.
> Thanks. The original patch is OK.
>> I agree with you on unifying lowlevellock.h - so it'll take a little
>> longer for me to submit the fix for the second bug as I'll stop to
>> unify the files as part of the work. (Quite a few of them do look
> FWIW there are two main different styles of syscall error handling in the
> files, but I don't know if that's in any way a necessary difference; at
> least it shouldn't require duplicating the whole file. (Compare the ARM
> and MIPS versions of lll_futex_timed_wait, for example.)
> Joseph S. Myers