This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fix Arm __ASSUME_COPY_FILE_RANGE (bug 23915) [committed]
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:59:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: Fix Arm __ASSUME_COPY_FILE_RANGE (bug 23915) [committed]
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811231754100.6394@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <87bm6cou8a.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811261640170.24694@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
* Joseph Myers:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Joseph Myers:
>>
>> > 2018-11-23 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
>> >
>> > [BZ #23915]
>> > * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/arm/kernel-features.h
>> > [__LINUX_KERNEL_VERSION < 0x040700] (__ASSUME_COPY_FILE_RANGE):
>> > Undefine.
>>
>> So I feel kind of bad about this—I looked for such issues after the
>> first problems cropped up and just didn't seem them in the kernel source
>> tree.
>>
>> Assuming that I'm going to implement a few system call wrappers in the
>> future, how can I do a better job here?
>
> My approach is to examine the diffs for the kernel version that introduced
> the syscall, and check whether it's present (asm/unistd.h, and syscall
> table, and any relevant compat syscall table) for each (architecture, ABI)
> pair supported by glibc not using the asm-generic syscall ABI.
Can we put a list somewhere of the files that need checking, for the
supported glibc architectures?
> What we really need is for the kernel to do a better job at introducing
> syscalls at the same time on all architectures, rather than just adding
> them for one or two architectures, leaving it to architecture maintainers
> to fill in the rest and so resulting in long delays before glibc can
> actually assume a syscall to be available everywhere.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Florian