[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170331160156.GL17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:01:56 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: libc-alpha@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support for POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:02:43PM +1100, daurnimator wrote:
> This patch adds support for the POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID flag.
>
> It was recently accepted by the Austin Group:
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1044
>
> ---
> include/spawn.h | 1 +
> src/process/posix_spawn.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/spawn.h b/include/spawn.h
> index 29c799ee..7dee7cfa 100644
> --- a/include/spawn.h
> +++ b/include/spawn.h
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct sched_param;
> #define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGMASK 8
> #define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDPARAM 16
> #define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDULER 32
> +#define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID 64
This overlaps with the glibc value for POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK; while we
don't implement it, we also don't want to have mismatched constant
ABI.
I know this is asking a lot, but could you possibly submit a glibc
patch too so the intended value (128 I guess?) is established on their
side too, or (yay if you can!) poke somebody else to do it? In the
past I've tried to just get them to casually agree to assigning values
for things like this before they implement them, but I haven't had
much luck.
Cc'ing libc-alpha too.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
