This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] sh: Use generic lowlevellock-futex.h.

On Thu, 2014-12-18 at 09:28 +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Torvald Riegel <> 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.

OK, thanks.

> 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.

Does that mean I can simply commit a patch that removes the custom
lowlevellock.h, or do you want to test this further before this is

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]