From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29516 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2014 22:19:16 -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 29491 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2014 22:19:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:19:12 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1WTIdh-0005gz-Bc from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:19:09 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.106]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:19:09 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:19:07 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WTIde-0007KX-9s; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:19:06 +0000 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:19:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Maxim Kuvyrkov CC: Will Newton , , , "libc-ports@sourceware.org" , libc-alpha Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix __lll_timedlock_wait busy-wait issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1395409800-4457-1-git-send-email-bniebuhr@efjohnson.com> <09F962CB-595F-4FAB-9435-52C237DB402C@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > I don't know how this might relate to > > (see > > and > > 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