This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Code freeze for glibc-2.19
- From: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh at google dot com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:46:40 +1000
- Subject: Re: Code freeze for glibc-2.19
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52C40F69 dot 9050604 at archlinux dot org> <52C4DD69 dot 9020809 at redhat dot com>
On 02/01/14 13:30, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 01/01/2014 07:51 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> There is still a few patches listed in the "Release blockers" section of
>> the wiki page [1]. It looks like the "Make TLS variables thread-safe"
>> patch needed changes and is large so can target 2.20.
>
> It is my opinion that we can get this into 2.19 right now. This
> will accelerate the adoption and continued testing of signal-safe
> TLS variable accesses. Further it will be a stepping stone towards
> a GNU2 TLS signal-safe implementation.
>
> Paul, and Andrew please correct me if I'm wrong but the TLS thread-safe
> variables work is almost complete and in place for 2.19 (3 of 4 split
> patches checked in).
>
> The work to make TLS variables thread-safe was split into 4 patches.
>
> The following 3 patches were reviewed and checked in:
>
> (1) Add signal mask control utility functions.
> - This was reviewed and checked in on 2013-12-18.
>
> (2) Add internal signal safe malloc implementation.
> - This was reviewed and checked in on 2013-12-18.
>
> (3) Factor out _dl_clear_dtv
> - This was reviewed and checked in on 2013-12-18.
>
> There is one last patch to review, which has already received review
> by Torvald Riegel, Alex Oliva and myself. Andrew Hunter has provided
> a new patch incorporating all suggestions.
>
> (4) Async signal-safe TLS access
> - Reviewed by mew today 2014-01-01 (version 5 of patch)
> - Has a test case.
> - Contains P&C comments about barriers.
>
> Given my review I think it's ready to checkin for 2.19.
>
> However, the final call is Allan's.
>
> Allan, I've tried to give you enough background here for you
> to make a call about this patch. That's what I would have
> expected from anyone else trying to get a feature into 2.19
> at or near the deadline :-)
>
> Comments?
That explanation is exactly what I needed. It was not apparent from the
wiki that this patch was part of a set that was mostly checked in and a
final revision had been made.
The patch is fine to check-in.
Allan