Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 19:49:04 -0400 From: Zack Weinberg <zackw@...ix.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] add support for POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 07:43:01PM -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >> >> > #define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSIGMASK 8 >> >> > #define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDPARAM 16 >> >> > #define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSCHEDULER 32 >> >> > +#define POSIX_SPAWN_SETSID 64 >> >> >> >> This overlaps with the glibc value for POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK; while we >> >> don't implement it, we also don't want to have mismatched constant >> >> ABI. >> .... >> > Thanks for all your work on this! Based on the glibc patch review, I'm >> > changing the error condition from !=0 to <0, and of course changing >> > the flag value to 128 to match. >> >> May I suggest that musl include a note in its headers, explaining that >> bit 64 is reserved to avoid an ABI conflict with glibc? Then the next >> time there's an addition, there will be less confusion. > > I was actually thinking of just adding POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK as a nop. > I think it will eventually be a nop on glibc too; maybe it already is > on Linux targets. Then we can have posix_spawnattr_setflags check > against all valid flags and return EINVAL if an unknown bit is set, so > that applications can runtime-probe for any future functionality > additions. Makes sense. zw
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.