Subject: Re: newlock2 breaks arm
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bucky Katz <email@example.com>
Date: 02/17/2007 21:55:12
Michael Lorenz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Someone with more ARM clue than me needs to write a handful locking
> primitives to get this going again. Looking at mutex.h and rwlock.h
> on other archs it's not much work but it needs someone who knows
> what he's doing.
Are locking semantics supposed to be the same now? Aren't there
changes beyond merely implementing the primitives differently?
Let me rephrase the question: If the only thing that changes was the
implementation of primitives, why does m:n have to come out? On the
other hand, if more changed, why do you think that just implementing
the primitives is enough to fix an arch?