This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove arm lowlevellock.c
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Bernie Ogden <bernie dot ogden 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: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:26:33 +0000
- 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>
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Will Newton wrote:
> Hi Bernie,
> ARM patches can now be sent to libc-alpha as ARM has moved from ports
> into the main tree.
> I'm not sure if we still use libc-ports for HPPA patches...
> On 28 April 2014 15:50, Bernie Ogden <email@example.com> wrote:
> > lowlevellock.c for arm differs from the generic lowlevellock.c only in
> > insignificant ways, so can be removed. Happily, this fixes BZ 15119
> > (unnecessary busy loop in __lll_timedlock_wait on arm).
> > Also note that the analysis at
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-02/msg00021.html indicates a
> > further locking performance bug to fix - I've got a partial patch for
> > that which I can submit once I've finished testing.
That analysis asserts that ARM's lowlevellock.c is trying to work around
a bug in lowlevellock.h. Are you asserting in this patch that in fact the
workaround is not needed - that there is no regression caused by removing
the lowlevellock.c file before fixing the lowlevellock.h bug?
(Actually I'd like to see unification of the lowlevellock.h files as far
as possible, not just lowlevellock.c.)
Joseph S. Myers