Subject: Re: the path from nathanw_sa -> newlock2
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bucky Katz <email@example.com>
Date: 02/15/2007 10:56:14
Michael Lorenz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Guess who has to work in -current because the arm port maintainer
>> didn't commit the OMAP architecture in time for it to make the 4.0
> And how exactly does that force you to use -current? Nothing keeps you
> from applying your fixes to the 4.0 branch.
The whole point of our trying to get the patches into the CVS tree is to
reduce the workload of having to continually reapply patches every
time we pull a new CVS tree into our work environment. It takes me
most of a day, once a month, to merge our work now. The more that goes
into the tree we're working on, the less time that merge takes.
> I didn't follow the OMAP changes, mainly because that's not exactly
> my work area but if you tell me what exactly needs to be pulled into
> 4.0 ( ideally in terms of commit messages on
> email@example.com ) I'll see to it - should be trivial, the
> branch isn't exactly old. Anyway, you're right about the maintainer
The problem with a pullup is that we'd have to rebase all of our other
stuff back onto 4.0 I believe that rebase would be more work than
coping with the 1:1 change will be.
> Besides that - how does your code depend on SA threads?
Two ways. There's a performance win for M:N threading on uniprocessors
that's fairly important on ARM because of the context switch overhead
on ARM. We've adapted libpthread to support userlevel thread
priorities, which our application needs, and we'll have to redo that
adaptation. (That's the patch I sent Andrew to review.)