This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCHv3] PowerPC: Fix a race condition when eliding a lock
- From: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, munroesj at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:35:34 -0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] PowerPC: Fix a race condition when eliding a lock
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55D742D3 dot 9050600 at redhat dot com> <1440439895-11812-1-git-send-email-tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <55DB6950 dot 5030805 at redhat dot com> <87vbc4ije6 dot fsf at totoro dot lan> <1440502941 dot 27492 dot 144 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain>
Torvald Riegel <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 16:19 -0300, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
>> "Carlos O'Donell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > On 08/24/2015 02:11 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>> >> Changes since v2:
>> >> - Moved part of the source code comments to the commit message.
>> >> - Added O'Donnel's suggestion to the source code comments.
>> >> Changes since v1:
>> >> - Improved commit message.
>> >> - Added new comments in the source code alerting to the concurrency details
>> >> intrinsic to this code.
>> >> - Removed compiler barriers from this patch, which will be treated in another
>> >> patch and will be synchronized with the GCC implementation.
>> Reason #2 is a valid point, but is unrelated to this patch, i.e. I wouldn't
>> backport the atomic access to glibc 2.21 and 2.22 if the only reason for it
>> is #2. So, it would be better as a separate patch.
> I wouldn't object if you split this into two parts, and only backport
> those patches that are necessary for correctness.
Great! So, let's split this discussion in 2: one to review the patch for bug
#18743 and another which is an RFC to create a rule to consistently use atomic
access to a memory object that need at least one atomic access.
Both discussions are completely unrelated, except that the former started the