This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH siddhesh/wait_bitset] Use FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET for pthread_cond_timedwaitfor non-x86: ppc, s390

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:23:59 -0600
Subject: Re: [PATCH siddhesh/wait_bitset] Use FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET for pthread_cond_timedwaitfor non-x86: ppc, s390
References: <20121022182330.4f774b71@spoyarek> <20121024000039.5492B2C061@topped-with-meat.com> <20121026154911.11670185@spoyarek> <508ACE76.3030908@redhat.com> <20121027082117.78c86bff@spoyarek>

On 10/26/2012 08:51 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:55:02 -0600, Jeff wrote:

Presumably there's some reason why you couldn't use the
INTERNAL_SYSCALL mechanisms for the s390 lll_futex_timed_wait_bitset?


No technical reason.  It's just that all of the functions in the s390
lowlevellock.h do the syscall directly, so I wrote it that way to
maintain uniformity.  Most (all?) of the lll_futex_* functions could
probably be rewritten as INTERNAL_SYSCALLs and moved into a common
header as a future cleanup.

Understood and I agree with keeping a uniform style.

However, if it was in the INTERNAL_SYSCALL form I'd be a lot more comfortable approving it since I don't know s390 assembly :-) However, it shouldn't be to terrible to have the INTERNAL_SYSCALL definition handy and verify your code is doing the same thing.

jeff

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH siddhesh/wait_bitset] Use FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET forpthread_cond_timedwait for non-x86: ppc, s390
  - From: Siddhesh Poyarekar

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]