This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN/INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:09:18 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN/INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150814120014 dot GA28610 at gmail dot com> <87oaiavy2c dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOoP9GPP+i6xbAXwHffwr+KOKNhV=FsJ5sx=G2bM_1SE+g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87oai9vkg7 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqPmsPPR7RPbdhMKh-cRxK_J2dphmECdvq0QHtfnLgz0w at mail dot gmail dot com> <87k2sxvjh8 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOrbhzbxg2ed3w0i7zE7=KM1q37DtR1vAY_Lk=rxsJ_8mA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87d1ypvixm dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqEpVE3X-drZp6W6UESV0CCAtY3Qew+SPOt1b7Y9BNwfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <878u9dvh61 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqNhBrGkJCkp5xT8DebN68qzoZciWtSZzGhYo1Msyv3TQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqZ=4B698SouQm=fTLaZvsqStQRYyMMhjPNCKMbjK1Xmw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqNodDbB2mi4SU6agR=-qK0yfRHyFq7BiwBeWre-gJ1tw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I will check in this on Friday unless there is an objection.
What's the evidence of consensus for the patch you checked in? It's not
clear that anyone reviewed the substance of it at all.
Problems I note in the committed patch include:
- return INLINE_SYSCALL (lstat, 2, name, (struct kernel_stat *) buf);
+ return INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN (lstat, 2, int, name,
+ (struct kernel_stat *) buf);
where you're calling the wrong macro (should be INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN),
and the apparently arbitrary insertion of libc_hidden_* calls in
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sched_getaffinity.c, which ought to be in a
At this point I think this commit should be reverted as lacking consensus.
Then a suitably cleaned up version needs to be reviewed properly before
going in. Silence does not generally mean consensus (we discussed such an
idea for unmaintained architectures, but x86 is not an unmaintained
architecture, it's maintained by community review).
I suspect the patch would also better be split up into the most mechanical
changes that don't change generated code at all, and the less obvious
pieces needing more careful review.
Joseph S. Myers