Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 13:55:14 +0100 From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> To: Michael Forney <mforney@...rney.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Support SIGEV_THREAD_ID * Michael Forney: > On 2019-08-01, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote: >> * James Y. Knight: >> >>> There seems to be some debate in glibc over whether this API should be >>> supported, due to the long-standing debate about "pthread_t" vs >>> "kernel tid" APIs. (And this API uses kernel tids, of course.) >> >> The debate is over and has been decided in favor of supporting TIDs. We >> just have a backlog of interfaces for which we need to add support. > > Hi Florian, > > Am I interpreting you correctly that glibc intends to add a > sigev_notify_thread_id define to access this field in struct sigevent? > I plan to send a patch to qemu to use sigev_notify_thread_id over > _sigev_un.tid if it is available, and I just want to confirm that > glibc intends to follow suit before I mention that in the commit > message. I do not expect that we are going to add a sigev_notify_thread_id member once glibc implements the struct member. On common configurations, it's likely that we are going to use a different approach, using anonymous structs and unions. I think you will have to use a different mechanism for detecting the presence of the struct member. Thanks, Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill
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.