From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26272 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2014 22:14:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26254 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2014 22:14:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pb0-f48.google.com Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com (HELO mail-pb0-f48.google.com) (209.85.160.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:14:06 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so4065302pbc.7 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=npCtu11qCdFdm/nyvGJHfEKJWY452FG7fMQtrMTgwtE=; b=VehxhjSYaK1ahC9k3uGkNUDdD5XiUWCDByi1is3KGi3Nh1O/SwVL/iVQBhSX7W1IIe wfO+Itl7KWF/R9ZTV35RDSFzJVSRHsipr0/BJ5sd7RFyoKWope3l5zJ9ht7Y4o4lVsF7 GCsBhwd3FMTbyI3dLOv7c3Jsi7zpma1yKEU5fEFQKvs/BkJ+zDNzaFRBEh9ksUJ2iEvl CGS34uIR0XSaGEeYAKGI3+YdX1tV6w1O8lyGYbzJZWzBsqQCffniE5+0CTXMICaQiDv1 ojyyUbGZb4nKeI11ltlYSMkpmt+uIowiwic5As6cE0PaIHFbWmWzl+LdyVbNuKtSOAgi kP9A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQln6CSGJbCLFwdgP3IA1RxCn3JRhdcUWAZIhEcQ1xjBHr9SrDlONo1Oh8FNiKOimWYwVe1P X-Received: by 10.68.106.130 with SMTP id gu2mr4421148pbb.59.1395958444528; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.130] (121-99-56-58.bng1.tvc.orcon.net.nz. [121.99.56.58]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om6sm13866200pbc.43.2014.03.27.15.14.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix __lll_timedlock_wait busy-wait issue From: Maxim Kuvyrkov In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:14:00 -0000 Cc: Will Newton , bniebuhr@efjohnson.com, uclibc@uclibc.org, "libc-ports@sourceware.org" , libc-alpha Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1395409800-4457-1-git-send-email-bniebuhr@efjohnson.com> <09F962CB-595F-4FAB-9435-52C237DB402C@linaro.org> To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joseph S. Myers wro= te: > I don't know how this might relate to=20 > (see=20 > and=20 > and the rest= =20 > of that thread). But my preference for how to address this is definitely= =20 > to move to unifying lowlevellock.[ch] files across as many architectures= =20 > as possible - which requires someone to understand the differences and=20 > produce a careful analysis that shows what the best form for generic file= s=20 > is and what cases actually require architecture-specific files to overrid= e=20 > those generic files (preferably overriding only the bits that need=20 > overriding). Yeap, it's the same issue in the PR and same solution as in this thread. U= nfortunately, the previous discussion veered off towards sparc away from AR= M 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 divergen= ce from generic lowlevellock. Thank you, -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org