[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0v9PNi21ED9kNarN9ZghEZjA4CT0n3N-fgP5+FzXX0NA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 22:09:26 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Data structures defined by both linux and musl
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:48 PM A. Wilcox <awilfox@...lielinux.org> wrote:
>
> On 01/18/19 10:50, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>> The takeaway is that we probably need to add new definitions for
> >>> flock64, statfs, stat, termios, {msg,sem,shm}{buf,info,id_ds}, ipc_perm,
> >>
> >> Not clear on how flock[64?] is affected.
> >
> > In my list, I had mentioned that the kernel's flock64 is different
> > from musl's flock structure on sparc64 (which has an extra
> > padding field) and on mips (I may have been mistaken there,
> > only flock differs on mips32, flock64 is apparently fine).
> >
> > If we don't care about musl on sparc, there may be no need to
> > do anything here.
>
> We have a sparc64 port in progress for musl. It's in the planning
> stages, and the goal was to get something shipping in late 2019.
>
> As usual, I guess we're going to be too little, too late.
Have you thought about how to handle timeval and flock64 here?
In both cases, the generic structure definition is different between
sparc64 kernels and the rest of the world including all other 64-bit
architectures and the musl definition.
Arnd
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.
