This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH glibc 2.31 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v12)
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer at fb dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Boqun Feng <boqun dot feng at gmail dot com>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Dave Watson <davejwatson at fb dot com>, Paul Turner <pjt at google dot com>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:45:14 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH glibc 2.31 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v12)
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 9/11/19 3:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell:
>> It would be easier to merge the patch set if it were just an unconditional
>> registration like we do for set_robust_list().
> Note that this depends on the in-tree system call numbers list, which I
> still need to finish according to Joseph's specifications.
Which work is this? Do you have a URL reference to WIP?
> (We have something that should work for us as long as we can get large
> machines from the lab, but I agree that it's not very useful if glibc
> bot-cycle time is roughly one business day.)
Yeah, we have to discuss how to accelerate this.