From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: [PATCH glibc 2.31 1/5] glibc: Perform rseq(2) registration at C startup and thread creation (v12) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:08:20 +0200 Message-ID: <87ef0mr6qj.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> References: <20190807142726.2579-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20190807142726.2579-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <8736h2sn8y.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <7db64714-3dc5-b322-1edc-736b08ee7d63@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <7db64714-3dc5-b322-1edc-736b08ee7d63@redhat.com> (Carlos O'Donell's message of "Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:00:43 -0400") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Joseph Myers , Szabolcs Nagy , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ben Maurer , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E. McKenney" , Boqun Feng , Will Deacon , Dave Watson , Paul Turner , Rich Felker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org * 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. (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.) Thanks, Florian