[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1901302104360.16754@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 21:10:07 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
CC: carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH glibc 1/4] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C
startup and thread creation (v6)
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> #if defined (__NR_rseq) && !defined (RSEQ_SIG)
> # error "UAPI headers support rseq system call, but glibc does not define RSEQ_SIG."
> #endif
>
> Would that take care of your concerns ?
That would of course need appropriate conditionals based on the most
recent kernel version for which a given glibc version has been updated, so
that using new kernel headers with an existing glibc release does not make
the build fail (cf. the test of syscall-names.list). And being able to
write such a test only solves one half of the problem - it needs to be
easy to determine what value to put in that header in glibc for an
architecture that's newly gained support in the kernel, *without* needing
any architecture expertise.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...esourcery.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists