Re: [PATCH] correction for PPC __compare_and_swap

[brianmc1 at us dot ibm dot com]

Ok,

Our Java guys tried your patch and say it looks good to them, so

. I would like to go with your patch rather than mine.  I like yours
better.
. I have looked into getting rid of the reservation code on unlock.  I
don't see any practical way to do that.  I would like to drop that issue.
. I think this addresses some of what Kaz was saying, but certainly not
all.  (I'm sorry I didn't respond.  Things got interesting here.)  I have
been reviewing the additional postings forwarded by Alexander.  I would
like to have a separate discussion on that but I'm not clear that this is
the correct forum.  Should that be taken offline?

brian

Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> on 05/10/2001 04:30:53 AM

Please respond to Geoff Keating <geoffk@redhat.com>

To:   David Mehaffy/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, Brian Mccorkle/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  Re: [PATCH] correction for PPC __compare_and_swap


> From: dmehaffy@us.ibm.com
> X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS
> cc: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, brianmc1@us.ibm.com
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:08:21 -0500
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Geoff,
>
> I'll have Brian tryout your patch with our Java people and see if it
solves
> their problem.  Meanwhile I will look at seeing if I can come up with a
> patch that doesn't use __compare_and_swap for the lock release.  I agree
> that we would like to not change machine independent code but I think we
> will have to change a line or two and we can #ifdef powerpc the code
though
> I hope I can find away around that.

The #ifdef should be something like

#ifdef RELEASE_USING_STORE

that is, a generic #define rather than just 'is this powerpc'.  I'm
sure other machines have this same property.

--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>