This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc at the Toolchains microconference at LPC 2019
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 5:04 PM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/26/19 1:41 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On June 26, 2019 6:50:23 PM GMT+02:00, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:39 PM Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@altlinux.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:01:28PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>>> glibc system call wrappers are on the agenda:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> <https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/blog/2019/toolchains-microconference-accepted-into-2019-linux-plumbers-conference/>
> >>>>
> >>>> Will anyone from the glibc community attend and can set the right
> >>>> expectations?
> >>>
> >>> What are the right expectations?
> >>
> >> Well, _I_ think glibc should provide wrappers for all Linux system
> >> calls, except those that cannot be used without stomping on internal
> >> glibc data structures (e.g. set_tid_address, set_robust_list, brk) and
> >> those that have been completely superseded by newer syscalls. Other
> >> people have disagreed with me pretty strenuously, but they haven't
> >> done any of the work required to make forward progress on their more
> >> conservative policies. I am tempted to post a patch early in the 2.31
> >> cycle that adds wrappers for everything, and then threaten to apply it
> >> unilaterally unless I hear concrete objections within a week or so.
> >>
> >> zw
> >
> > Strongly agree.
> >
>
> Zach,
>
> Could you please review the language here:
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus#WIP:_Kernel_syscalls_wrappers
>
> I drafted it in 2014-10-23 based on comments from Joseph Myers and the
> community (almost 5 years ago!)
>
> If you agree to that langauge I'll propose this again as being accepted
> consensus.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Carlos.