[Development] Maintainer changes to review: QMutex optimisations

[Thiago Macieira]

On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 11.10.10, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> I was in vacation last week without proper internet access.
> Many of the changes already had a +2 from me before, but it went away as you
> rebased or refreshed the changes.  This show a problem with the gerrit tool
> and a major annoyance of the "topics" since it keeps you from already
> merging the stand alone patches that have already been approved.

The earlier ones that had +2 kept them. It's only the later ones that lost the 
+2 due to rebasing, because Gerrit doesn't know whether the change depended on 
something from the previous version.

Even though it told me "no files changed, just rebased" when I pushed.

> Regarding the 2 patches which I have not approved: I personally think they
> are not giving anything usefull, just adding complexity.
> I think QBasicMutex and QMutex should be the same, only one is POD. And am
> not in favor of all the patches that goes against that.  But I realize that
> argument is not enough to veto or even put -1.

The problem is that QBasicMutex being POD -- actually, being zero initialised 
-- is imposing constraints in how we can optimise the much more used QMutex. 
QMutex construction happens once, so it makes sense to keep the lock & timing 
structure, instead of having to find it from the freelist on every contended 
lock and unlock.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
     Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
     Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120826/91cbf935/attachment.sig>