This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Upcoming feature freeze vs. concurrency change
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at sourceware dot org>, GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:11:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: Upcoming feature freeze vs. concurrency change
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1467212290 dot 3700 dot 22 dot camel at localhost dot localdomain> <20160629160857 dot GA3824 at devel dot intra dot reserved-bit dot com> <57740345 dot 8010804 at linaro dot org>
On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 14:20 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> On 29/06/2016 13:09, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:58:10PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> I have been working on a new, more scalable rwlock implementation. The
> >> last information I have about the feature freeze is stating July 1st.
> >> Is this still up to date? I believe I'll need a few more days to finish
> >> the rwlock if all works well, but I won't make Jul 1st because I'm AFK
> >> tomorrow till Sunday. Would this still be acceptable?
> > Oh boy, I have been sitting on the updated tunables patch for the last
> > couple of weeks and I completely forgot about the deadline. If it is
> > possible to move the freeze by a few days (if it is indeed on 1st)
> > then I'd really like that.
> I do not oppose move the feature freeze date to next week. Would be it
> suffice for both tunables and new rw-lock implementation?
I'd hope so, but I can't promise it yet. I haven't taken care of all
corners of the algorithm yet, and I'm not going to propose a patch that
I'm not certain about.
However, I wouldn't want to stop people from starting to test either.
What do you think about me finishing work on this and then proposing the
patch when it's ready, and then deciding whether to accept it for this
cycle or not?