Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:09:31 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:25:05PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:04 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:26:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > > The normal rule is that we don't define obsolete system calls in new > > > architectures when an improved variant has been added, e.g. oldoldstat, > > > oldstat, stat, newstat and stat64 have all been replaced by statx over > > > the decades. I was expecting the same to be true for clone(), but if > > > clone3() is not meant as a replacement, we can keep both around. > > > > No, I agree with you on this and would like to only implement clone3() > > on new architectures. > > > > What I'm asking is whether removing the size == 0 check is enough to > > unblock the missing behavior and whether you'd be on board with removing > > the check? > > I think that's ok here, since we'd only rely on this for loongarch64 at the > moment. It would probably need to be documented in the man page > as a special case though. I'm okay with removing the check for size==0 (so size==0 will be allowed) and dropping __NR_clone on new archs, as long as it's noted in comments/documentation that size==0 is explicitly allowed so nobody breaks this in the future. 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.