From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930827839E for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 03:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id v7E346if003707 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 13 Aug 2017 20:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.236] (128.224.162.236) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.361.1; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 20:04:06 -0700 To: Khem Raj , Richard Purdie References: <1502421401-112341-1-git-send-email-zhixiong.chi@windriver.com> <1502613383.18633.287.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Zhixiong Chi Message-ID: <59911324.9070808@windriver.com> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:04:04 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH] glibc: add ld.so locks in _libc_fork X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 03:04:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2017年08月14日 00:35, Khem Raj wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Richard Purdie > wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:16 +0800, Zhixiong Chi wrote: >>> The patch in this Bugzilla entry was requested by a customer: >>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4578 >>> https://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19282 >> I'm a little nervous about accepting a patch which has been sitting in >> the glibc bugzilla for around 10 years. Any idea why upstream haven't >> taken this? >> > patches look sane to me. I would like to see if we can reproduce the > issue on x86 using the > testcases from bugzilla I don't know why the upstream don't take care of it. I guess the reason may be that the testcases is out of scope and we usually don't use the unasync-signal-safe function after the forking. Yes, the testcases from bugzilla can be reproduced easily on every qemu bsp. At the same time we have done the glibc regression testing, The patches works well. Thanks. >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- --------------------- Thanks, Zhixiong Chi Tel: +86-10-8477-7036