[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170422231933.GK17319@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:19:33 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, libc-alpha@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support for POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:01:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for all your work on this! Based on the glibc patch review, I'm
changing the error condition from !=0 to <0, and of course changing
the flag value to 128 to match.
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.
