Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:36:24 +0200 From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:09:31AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > 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 oldstat, stat, newstat and stat64 have all been replaced by statx over 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. Ok, I'll try to have a patch ready early next week since I'm currently out sick.
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.