[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0Mc9WEwcNEQfMn1iTLf0syBFJQ29+j3KBt-P=ZYg76NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:25:05 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
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 oldstat, stat, newstat and stat64 have all been replaced by statx over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.
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.
