[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:42:59 +0200
From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: What's left for 1.1.11 release?
Am Dienstag, den 28.07.2015, 12:07 -0400 schrieb Rich Felker:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 05:15:29PM +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> > Another possibility would be to squeeze the lock bit and the wait
> > counter into a single int, and operate on the bit with some
> > fetch_and and fetch_or operations. But that would probably be much
> > more of a code change.
>
> Yes, this is the "new normal-type mutex" thread which I think you
> already saw and commented on. I suspect it's the preferred approach in
> the long term, but I don't like using redesigns as bug fixes
agreed
> unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the old design that makes
> it impossible to fix. In this case there is no such issue. The lock
> design is perfectly valid; x86 a_store is just buggy.
Assuming just release consistency from a store operation is a
reasonable thing to do and to have such a relaxed operation in the set
makes sense. So somehow the error is more in the assumptions about the
operation than in the operation itself.
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
