Subject: Re: the path from nathanw_sa -> newlock2
To: Bucky Katz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael Lorenz <email@example.com>
Date: 02/15/2007 15:50:06
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Feb 15, 2007, at 13:56, Bucky Katz wrote:
> The whole point of our trying to get the patches into the CVS tree is
> reduce the workload of having to continually reapply patches every
> time we pull a new CVS tree into our work environment.
Hmm, usually cvs update does a pretty good job merging changes.
Certainly works for me ( with occasional conflict solving of course )
> 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
>> firstname.lastname@example.org ) 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.
Really? 4.0 was rebranched pretty recently, it can't be that far from
HEAD-before-newlock2. I'd almost bet the OMAP stuff hasn't been touched
>> 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.
Fair enough. Did anyone do any measurements with the new threading code
on ARM? I didn't get around to play with it on Shark yet but there are
some platforms that actually got a noticeable speed boost from the new
threading code ( namely macppc ).
> 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.)
Seriously - did you even look at the 4.0 branch? Or am I missing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----