Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:11:29 +0800 From: 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port 在 2022/4/11 下午9:01, Arnd Bergmann 写道: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:11 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 5:27 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >>>>>> Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API >>>>>> regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs >>>>>> yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior >>>>>> (unspecified stack size). >>>>> That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of >>>>> clone3() is unintentional >>>>> here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with >>>>> additional features. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly >>>>> intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore >>>>> the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them >>>>> is a great interface. >>>> Are there archs already affected, or will this one be the first? >>> We have not added any other architectures since clone3 got added, >>> so this is the first one. >> In that case I really think __NR_clone should just be kept for now. It >> doesn't really cost anything on the kernel side and it avoids a >> dependency on working out how __NR_clone3 is going to fix the missing >> functionality. > Yes, fair enough. > > Arnd Do I need to implement __clone3 for future called in LoongArch port ? Hongliang Wang.
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.