> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:[email protected]] > On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > > > On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joseph S. Myers > <[email protected]> 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.
On the topic of the original patch I submitted to uclibc: I can certainly submit a similar patch to glibc, but it sounds as if people would prefer to refactor those files instead. If that's the case, I don't feel that I know the code well enough to safely refactor it and merge all of the architectures, so I will probably let someone more knowledgeable do that. However if you all would like me to submit a patch to __lll_timedlock_wait in glibc instead, just let me know. This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, review, copy or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
