This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.28 status.
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 07:21:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.28 status.
- References: <email@example.com> <CAMe9rOqE_6Fvcu2_AbbMRon5yWmZW36_s9osqn20sd+qu_cOfirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Carlos O'Donell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 07/20/2018 10:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> We've been moving slowly through the large set of desirable and
>>> blocker bugs, either deferring or trying to resolve reviews.
>>> I admit we were being overly optimistic in what we wanted for
>>> the release and we're pruning that back now. I think next week
>>> we should start the machine testing, but to do that I'd like to
>>> see finished work for a few things.
>>> What is the status of Intel CET? This is an important feature
>>> which I know is desirable for Intel and partners because getting
>>> this into the ecosystem ahead of hardware has value. We've been
>>> working on the core issues for a long time.
>>> Are there only 3 patches left at this point?
>> All CET patches have been submitted. There are 12 patches pending
>> review, 2 of them are for more than a month. Among them, 6 patches
>> are new tests. Should I re-submit them?
> Yes, please resubmit the whole set of 12 patches again as clean set
> of patches to apply on top of master and I'll get to reviewing these
> again. This way I don't have to collate the previous messages.