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: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Bernie Ogden <bernie dot ogden 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: Thu, 1 May 2014 14:29:03 +0100
- 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> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1404301546250 dot 30561 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 30 April 2014 16:49, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> 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 applied this patch on Bernie's behalf.
--
Will Newton
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro