This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v6] Also use l_tls_dtor_count to decide on object unload (BZ #18657)
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, roland at hack dot frob dot com
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:01:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] Also use l_tls_dtor_count to decide on object unload (BZ #18657)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55A903FD dot 3060503 at redhat dot com> <1437413472-21674-1-git-send-email-siddhesh at redhat dot com> <1437510567 dot 18846 dot 46 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <20150723054924 dot GQ2243 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com>
On 07/23/2015 01:49 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:29:27PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> Overall, with perhaps the exception of the reasoning about the relaxed
>> MO on the increment, and based on the conversation that I had with
>> Siddhesh, I think the synchronization in this patch is sound. Thus, I
>> think that we can also do more word-smithing on how we explain it after
>> the release (so that this doesn't hold up the release then).
>
> Thanks, I've pushed this now, with more changes to the documentation
> as per your suggestion. Revised version is below.
This version fixes almost all of my suggestions from v6 (though this is now v7).
However, it remains that we use "load lock" and "load_lock" to talk about
"dl_load_lock".
I would prefer that all references be made to the real name of the lock
e.g. "dl_load_lock", in the even that some day we split the lock in two
that we don't have to go through and clarify which of the two load locks
we're talking about.
Cheers,
Carlos.