This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PING][PATCH 1/4] S390: Use C11-like atomics instead of plain memory accesses in lock elision code.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:43:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH 1/4] S390: Use C11-like atomics instead of plain memory accesses in lock elision code.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1481032315-12420-1-git-send-email-stli@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <8fc099fb-ca48-3fc0-7c9e-15ab04b82a92@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1481912080.14990.593.camel@redhat.com> <c82c4cfc-f623-ce90-1b08-925e303ef0e4@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1482399266.14990.770.camel@redhat.com> <554d5d6c-4258-2fcc-3f39-a1755b4cd8ba@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 17:06 +0100, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 12/22/2016 10:34 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 15:28 +0100, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2016 07:14 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 09:38 +0100, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> >>>> ping.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I've been busy with the robust mutex bugs.
> >>>
> >>> This patch is OK. Thanks.
> >>>
> >> Thanks. Committed.
> >
> > I've reviewed and ack'ed patch 1 of 4, but it looks like you committed
> > patches 2-4 as well. Did anyone review these?
> >
> Sorry. That was my fault.
> Shall I revert the other patches and continue after the release?
>
Let's do the normal review process first. I've reviewed the other 3 by
now; maybe we can just fix them up where necessary. Sounds good?