On 12/04/17 11:32, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > On 12.04.2017 13:15, Joe Savage wrote: > >>>> The problem is that when we discussed this patch on ODP call people very > >>>> worry about having 128bit instructions in ODP examples. At least Petri > >>>> and Barry asked if it would be possible to rewrite that with 64 bit > >>>> instructions? Some compilers might not support 128 bits and we need to > >>>> test it more. > >>> > >>> On 32-bit platforms, it already does use 64-bit atomics. In general, > >>> though, > >>> the example hinges around having atomics that are twice the pointer size. > >>> We've actually discussed this on the list already in the thread "32-bit > >>> support in examples". Even if lock-free implementations can't be used, > >>> compilers can (and frequently do?) provide a lock-based compare exchange > >>> operation. > >> > >> Any progress on this? > > > > This is getting mildly ridiculous now — it's nearing three months since I > > initially submitted this simple example patch, and there's still no end in > > sight! Maxim: any status updates? > > > > Dmitry wanted to write some big review for that patch. But I do not see > anything here. People commented on 128 bit instructions in examples and > nobody set their review-by. I will rise question about your patch one > more time on arch call. I can not include things where we did not get > common agreement. I do not see anything bad with this patch but we need > account all existence odp platforms.
I totally appreciate that some form of agreement needs to be reached before a given patch can be merged, but I don't think that leaving me in the dark about the status of such issues is a particularly good way to run things. (This is hardly a healthy process for encouraging contributions.) As I mentioned in the previous discussions (to no response), lock-based compare exchange implementations are perfectly acceptable, and thus there should not be any earth shattering compatibility issues here.
