Re: [PATCH] Fix __lll_timedlock_wait busy-wait issue

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:

> 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.

The present thread is specifically discussing lowlevellock.c, but Carlos 
suggested in the previous discussion that the real issue was in 
__lll_timedlock in lowlevellock.h.  I think both files need unification 
across architectures.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com