[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53D97A9E.3090908@twiddle.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:07:10 -1000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
To: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mcree@...on.net.nz,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] alpha: Remove "strange" OSF/1 fork semantics
On 07/30/2014 12:04 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net> writes:
>
>> The assignment to regs->r20 kills the original tls_val input
>> to the clone syscall, which means that clone can no longer be
>> restarted with the original inputs.
>>
>> We could, perhaps, retain this result for true fork, but OSF/1
>> compatibility is no longer important. Note that glibc has never
>> used the r20 result value, instead always testing r0 vs 0 to
>> determine the child/parent status.
>
> What effect does this have on OSF/1 compat?
I don't know, as I've never had access to osf/1 myself. It depends on how that
$20 value is used -- potentially, fork(3) no longer works.
I can imagine that we could retain these assignments under the condition of
clone_flags == 0, which both implies a basic fork as well as the fact that the
tls_val argument is unused.
But I do have to ask first if anyone actually cares. Surely the amount of
osf-on-linux emulation is a vanishingly small proportion of the already small
alpha-linux population.
r~
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists