This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove arm lowlevellock.c
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernie Ogden <bernie dot ogden at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, "libc-ports at sourceware dot org" <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:49:58 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove arm lowlevellock.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CALE0ps2nxAqHeotsxVcBEOV+nRsFGLBLD8+kP2ZY-PdnELkueA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CANu=Dmjz96Nk-C0xWOdO-xDWzt=+Z7u6OrsYJehcB_Y0T7B=ag at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1404291523380 dot 6770 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CALE0ps2q-jXh+p-_70jG8EvyWSB39uBmy6N=kjfn2xihppi95w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Bernie Ogden wrote:
> The workaround is that some of the arm lowlevellock.c functions
> promote futex to 2 if it is 1. Generic lowlevellock.c always promotes
> futex to 2. Hence, removing arm's lowlevellock.c doesn't cause a
> regression in this sense.
Thanks. The original patch is OK.
> I agree with you on unifying lowlevellock.h - so it'll take a little
> longer for me to submit the fix for the second bug as I'll stop to
> unify the files as part of the work. (Quite a few of them do look
> unifiable.)
FWIW there are two main different styles of syscall error handling in the
files, but I don't know if that's in any way a necessary difference; at
least it shouldn't require duplicating the whole file. (Compare the ARM
and MIPS versions of lll_futex_timed_wait, for example.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com