This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Linux: Implement membarrier function
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:25:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux: Implement membarrier function
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20190222083923.GK23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
* Rich Felker:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is essentially a repost of last year's patch, rebased to the glibc
>> 2.29 symbol version and reflecting the introduction of
>> I'm not including any changes to manual/ here because the set of
>> supported operations is evolving rapidly, we could not get consensus for
>> the language I proposed the last time, and I do not want to contribute
>> to the manual for the time being.
>> 2018-11-28 Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
>> Linux: Implement membarrier function.
>> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/Makefile (sysdep_headers): Add
>> (tests): Add tst-membarrier.
>> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/Versions (GLIBC_2.27): Add membarrier.
>> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sys/membarrier.h: New file.
> I notice that the declaration moved from sys/mman.h to this new header
> since the previous version of this patch. Is this an intentional
Yes, it makes it clearer how we avoid maintaining a separate list of
constants for this.
> and is it where everyone now intends/agrees for it to be when
> it gets merged?
I don't know if there is consensus, sorry.