This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] sh: Use generic lowlevellock-futex.h.
- From: Kaz Kojima <kkojima at rr dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
- To: triegel at redhat dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:28:04 +0900 (JST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: Use generic lowlevellock-futex.h.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1418856067 dot 20194 dot 7 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
Torvald Riegel <email@example.com> wrote:
> This completely untested patch removes the custom definitions of futex
> functions in sh lowlevellock.h, using the generic lowlevellock-futex.h
> instead. This is part of the clean-up efforts regarding the
> glibc-internal futex API (e.g., adding proper error checking).
> This also removes the sh4 lowlevellock.h, which just requires more
> padding for the syscalls; the same requirement is made by sh4 sysdep.h,
> so INTERNAL_SYSCALL used in the generic lowlevellock-futex.h will honor
> this too.
> This keeps the custom asm for the lock fast paths because I don't know
> whether the generic C implementation would be fine. If it would be
> (e.g., test with sh's lowlevellock.h removed), then removing the custom
> asm altogether would be even better.
> Is this OK for sh? If not, do you have an alternative suggestion for
> how to use the generic futex interfaces?
The patch is OK.
I definitely agree with your view about the custom asm. Switch to
the generic C implementation would be simply fine and the way to go.