Re: spinlock support on loongarch64

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-11-02 11:37:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder if we shouldn't just do that (ie, try to use
>> __sync_lock_test_and_set) as a generic fallback on any unsupported
>> architecture. We could get rid of the separate stanza for RISC-V
>> that way. The main thing that an arch-specific stanza could bring
>> is knowledge of the best data type width to use for a spinlock;
>> but I don't see a big problem with defaulting to "int". We can
>> always add arch-specific stanzas for any machines where that's
>> shown to be a seriously poor choice.

> Yes, please. It might not be perfect for all architectures, and it might not
> be good for some very old architectures. But for anything new it'll be vastly
> better than not having spinlocks at all.

So about like this, then.

regards, tom lane