Subject: Re: the path from nathanw_sa -> newlock2
To: Bucky Katz <>
From: Michael Lorenz <>
List: current-users
Date: 02/15/2007 15:50:06
Hash: SHA1


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 
> to
> 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.

Fair enough.

>> 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
>> ) I'll see to it - should be trivial, the
>> branch isn't exactly old.  Anyway, you're right about the maintainer
>> problem.
> 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 
something here?

have fun
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)