From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-79726-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11593 invoked by alias); 25 May 2017 12:35:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 11076 invoked by uid 89); 25 May 2017 12:35:40 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=thursday
X-HELO: mail-qt0-f172.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc;
        bh=8jf20T0ERFUJasIAk/Df325XUt1Nc9Me4RQtKHa1y+U=;
        b=mrujQ0JUnmOJVFBibNGXTVK2caFly1gf4RGBG80zfiQMn7eEs3mHVm21nkP2uJudqT
         PeMYIBKeGqVRUN+yMsH5LVp9Oo1tN0PACWglIyZURG4stYxCvu2qYKaNbpMC7Yker7L7
         M0e4rTt5LMa5FTcVNJzXPKfDcXlbsmnJM0H1JvWA/cmumxxnMiawhvo3UFICq4DxlsYH
         CfHl8xes3PqFS4bGG5jaHuz9M0nE8i3mJpJjti13zk1MEEtq8ixzQX9n1jG2abZh1/2/
         LLkvPAZwwq2F9j102Bx6zuTN2DJpRwtnxF2Mr/BvGY8eWTFsZUJCWMQ/dzyZzmyWtR9/
         HdbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAI+VKrjPulwLPh5ChTty/QiRvGEg68wx1kd6rX0JCTuV+PcANL
	OOOGzRABw39f8LY/s0ImqErJDxgNDw==
X-Received: by 10.200.41.36 with SMTP id y33mr43950446qty.193.1495715741766;
 Thu, 25 May 2017 05:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11468384-3c04-03a7-d6b4-7fb7e83f1714@gotplt.org>
References: <20170524194109.GA23029@lucon.org> <11468384-3c04-03a7-d6b4-7fb7e83f1714@gotplt.org>
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 12:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOpFZAEJoVyBnwnARop7SHyLeeWmiqwKrgbzcZLMsOmqoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support dl-tunables.list in subdirectories
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00754.txt.bz2

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
<siddhesh@gotplt.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 May 2017 01:11 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> We can put processor specific tunables in dl-tunables.list under
>> sysdeps instead of in elf/dl-tunables.list.
>>
>> Any comments?
>
> That makes sense.  However, please avoid putting processor/arch

I will check in my patch.

> information in the tunable names.  That is, instead of glibc.x86_tune or
> something like that, stick to glibc.tune[1].  That way if the tunable is
> deemed to be applicable to other architectures in future, then we can
> simply move it to the generic list.

Sure, we can discuss when I submit my patch.

Thanks.

> Siddhesh
>
> [1] Any processor/hardware feature tuning should go into the glibc.tune
> namespace. I see you're looking to implement IFUNC overrides, so the
> tunable I've proposed for that is glibc.tune.mcpu where the values
> should map to those in gcc.



-- 
H.J.