[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:34:19 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add sched_getcpu
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:35:21PM +0100, Tomasz Sterna wrote:
> W dniu 29.02.2016, pon o godzinie 16∶30 -0500, użytkownik Rich Felker
> napisał:
> > There are a lot of Linux specific syscalls without libc wrappers.
> > > Is this one special enough?
> > I wouldn't say there are a lot; do you have a list?
>
> $ grep -roh 'syscall(SYS_[a-z]*' src/kits/kernel/ | sort -u
> syscall(SYS_exit
SYS_exit cannot be used safely unless you have a single-threaded
program, and in that case you can use _exit (SYS_exit_group).
> syscall(SYS_futex
There's work on getting glibc to expose futex, but I want to ensure
that we do it in a compatible (in terms of types used, and where the
declaration and macros get defined) way, so I'm waiting til we reach
consensus on that to take any action in musl.
> syscall(SYS_gettid
For glibc it's been controversial whether to expose tids as a public
API, since it pokes through the pthread abstraction and imposes a 1:1
threads implementation. My view is that, unless you want to write a
gigantic framework emulating each blocking syscall in userspace, POSIX
already imposes a 1:1 threads implementation, and it's stupid to still
pretend that M:N is viable.
> syscall(SYS_tgkill
tgkill also requires tids to be exposed an potentially has other
issues, and doesn't seem to offer anything that pthread_kill doesn't.
> > The topic of what should and should not be given libc wrappers has
> > been under discussion on the glibc list for a while now. [...]
> > You should not need to use syscall() to access any Linux
> > functionality that's meant to be exposed to applications; [...]
>
> Really depends on how you define "applications".
I mean syscalls that are intended for writing application programs
rather than for implementing the userspace part of C/POSIX.
> Basically why I asked the question - if the above should also be
> wrapped, I am all for it. But if not, why some syscalls are special?
I hope I've answered this to some extent. If not please elaborate on
what specific things aren't clear.
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.
