Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Move remaining sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/nptl/ files

[Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>]

> It looks like x86 and arm are already using sysdeps/ARCH/nptl/bits, so
> perhaps better to be consistent, though?

The nptl/ subdir is appropriate, because these files do not apply to any
non-nptl configuration that uses sysdeps/ARCH.  Today sysdeps/ARCH/nptl
gets into the list because of the add-on mechanism.  But later on, it will
still get there, because once nptl is no longer an add-on each
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ARCH/Implies will list sysdeps/ARCH/nptl.

> Unfortunately, powerpc and alpha already followed your original proposal
> of moving to sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ARCH/bits for these files.  Roland,
> do you think the powerpc/alpha maintainers should adjust those paths to
> be consistent with x86 and arm?

Using sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ARCH/ here is an acceptable intermediate
step.  There are really two separate things going on here:

1. De-add-on-ization of NPTL.
   To do just this, using sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ARCH/ makes sense and
   is the least change from the status quo.
2. De-Linux-ization of NPTL code containing no actual Linuxisms.
   Assuming each bits/ file actually contains no Linuxisms, then
   using sysdeps/ARCH/nptl/ accomplishes one tiny piece of this work.

#1 is what requires action from every machine maintainer.  For #2 I'll be
able to proceed piecemeal with each architecture I'm actually paying
attention to for a non-Linux NPTL port, which is just ARM to begin with and
later will include x86.

So if you want to vet the bits/ files and verify there are no creeping
Linuxisms in there, then moving them to sysdeps/ARCH/nptl now is great.
But if you want to think about it less and just move them to
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ARCH/, that is just fine too.


Thanks,
Roland