Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch64 native spin lock.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, wengyanqing(at)ymatrix(dot)cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add loongarch64 native spin lock.
Date: 2023-05-17 12:37:30
Message-ID: 3098498.1684327050@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

YANG Xudong <yangxudong(at)ymatrix(dot)cn> writes:
> This patch set tries to add loongarch64 native spin lock to postgresql.

This came up before, and our response was

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git&a=commitdiff&h=1c72d82c2

In principle, at least, there is no longer any need for
machine-specific s_lock.h additions. Is there a strong reason
why the __sync_lock_test_and_set solution isn't good enough?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-05-17 13:22:19 Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN
Previous Message Tom Lane 2023-05-17 12:08:36 Re: Possible regression setting GUCs on \connect