Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:47:00 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: RUSAGE_THREAD * Raphael Cohn <raphael.cohn@...rmmq.com> [2016-06-28 17:58:22 +0100]: > On 28 June 2016 at 17:52, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 04:00:45PM +0100, Raphael Cohn wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm in the process of compiling ZFS on Linux against musl. ZFS seems to > > > make a few slightly glibc-like assumptions, one of which is the use of > > > RUSAGE_THREAD. Musl seems to lack a definition of this in sys/resource.h. > > > Is this deliberate? > > > > > > Glibc defines RUSAGE_THREAD as 1, but musl already uses this value for > > > RUSAGE_CHILDREN (glibc sets this as -1). What would be the correct value > > > for RUSAGE_THREAD with musl? > > > > Maybe this is incorrect in musl then. Can anyone confirm? The values > > are determined by (i.e. have to match) the kernel. > > > > Rich > > > > I've grabbed the 4.6 linux kernel sources. A quick grep suggests > include/uapi/linux/resource.h defines it as 1. Additionally, in this file:- > > RUSAGE_SELF is 0 (I believe this is also the value musl uses). > RUSAGE_CHILDREN is -1 > RUSAGE_BOTH is -2 (not in glibc; not mentioned in the getrusage man pages I > have). > > What does anyone else think? yes it seems the kernel definitions are #define RUSAGE_SELF 0 #define RUSAGE_CHILDREN (-1) #define RUSAGE_BOTH (-2) /* sys_wait4() uses this */ #define RUSAGE_THREAD 1 /* only the calling thread */ on all targets _BOTH means _SELF+_CHILDREN and is used in the implementation of wait in the kernel.
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.