[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220413140930.GV7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:09:31 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:25:05PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:04 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:26:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > The normal rule is that we don't define obsolete system calls in new
> > > architectures when an improved variant has been added, e.g. oldoldstat,
> > > oldstat, stat, newstat and stat64 have all been replaced by statx over
> > > the decades. I was expecting the same to be true for clone(), but if
> > > clone3() is not meant as a replacement, we can keep both around.
> >
> > No, I agree with you on this and would like to only implement clone3()
> > on new architectures.
> >
> > What I'm asking is whether removing the size == 0 check is enough to
> > unblock the missing behavior and whether you'd be on board with removing
> > the check?
>
> I think that's ok here, since we'd only rely on this for loongarch64 at the
> moment. It would probably need to be documented in the man page
> as a special case though.
I'm okay with removing the check for size==0 (so size==0 will be
allowed) and dropping __NR_clone on new archs, as long as it's noted
in comments/documentation that size==0 is explicitly allowed so nobody
breaks this in the future.
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.
