This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
- From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso at mit dot edu>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Colascione <dancol at google dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs dot Nagy at arm dot com>, Dave P Martin <Dave dot Martin at arm dot com>, nd <nd at arm dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf at google dot com>, Linux API <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>, Willy Tarreau <w at 1wt dot eu>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka at suse dot cz>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:30:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library?
- References: <877ehjx447.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CAKOZues5SEESpJU=6MDTrPXTA1KTZFGNQE4Lw4t0fO-WBTU62w@mail.gmail.com> <875zx2vhpd.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CAKOZuetdgk1QYhx1538-98rFpogMin=8DkPnCtU9_=ip23Vk7w@mail.gmail.com> <20181113193859.GJ3505@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <5853c297-9d84-86e5-dede-aa2957562c6b@arm.com> <CAKOZuesta_V=doXsVLc2E6WCQvywdur3F+u2pFKaPN+CEQd+ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811141741000.16571@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAKOZuetCGCfNdJ2QM0phu3_3Q29f5Yeh=NHiM_A9MhHsCjK48A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811141840140.16571@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 06:47:57PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>
> > A good demonstration of a new commitment to pragmatism would be
> > merging the trivial wrappers for gettid(2).
>
> I support the addition of gettid (for use with those syscalls that take
> tids, and with appropriate documentation explaining the properties of
> tids) - and, generally, wrappers for all non-obsolescent
> architecture-independent Linux kernel syscalls, including ones that are
> very Linux-specific, except maybe for a few interfaces fundamentally
> inconsistent with glibc managing TLS etc. - they are, at least, no worse
> as a source of APIs than all the old BSD / SVID interfaces we have from
> when those were used as sources of APIs.
That's great. But is it or is it not true (either de jure or de
facto) that "a single active glibc developer" can block a system call
from being supported by glibc by objecting? And if not, under what is
the process by resolving a conflict?
- Ted