From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27022 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2014 15:50:06 -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 26934 invoked by uid 89); 30 Apr 2014 15:50:05 -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; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:50:05 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1WfWll-0006AC-Mi from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:50:01 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:50:01 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:49:59 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WfWli-000233-DW; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:49:58 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:50:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Bernie Ogden CC: Will Newton , "libc-ports@sourceware.org" , libc-alpha Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove arm lowlevellock.c In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 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 agree with you on unifying lowlevellock.h - so it'll take a little > longer for me to submit the fix for the second bug as I'll stop to > unify the files as part of the work. (Quite a few of them do look > unifiable.) FWIW there are two main different styles of syscall error handling in the files, but I don't know if that's in any way a necessary difference; at least it shouldn't require duplicating the whole file. (Compare the ARM and MIPS versions of lll_futex_timed_wait, for example.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com