[PATCH] Fix __lll_timedlock_wait busy-wait issue

[Maxim Kuvyrkov]

On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:

> I don't know how this might relate to 
> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15119> (see 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-01/msg00084.html> and 
> <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-02/msg00021.html> and the rest 
> of that thread).  But my preference for how to address this is definitely 
> to move to unifying lowlevellock.[ch] files across as many architectures 
> as possible - which requires someone to understand the differences and 
> produce a careful analysis that shows what the best form for generic files 
> is and what cases actually require architecture-specific files to override 
> those generic files (preferably overriding only the bits that need 
> overriding).

Yeap, it's the same issue in the PR and same solution as in this thread.  Unfortunately, the previous discussion veered off towards sparc away from ARM and got forgotten.

I agree that unifying lowlevellock.c implementation is the way forward.  At the very least I will make sure that ARM doesn't have unnecessary divergence from generic lowlevellock.

Thank you,

--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.linaro.org