From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id DB9193858C74; Wed, 21 Jun 2023 14:32:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DB9193858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1687357966;
	bh=8FX18iwrt7ypTpGHcdTl5LNyerF6xGkwRPBajO89qg8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=pHxHxjSnXtGF7TT7OVg75pym/5luLOxJQAmlehxOuToVAGJ+JaAzAKjKGTxpi7ii7
	 PLiyGLOjH3mkUJWavDF6blpfU//4mhoptS7jfoR0HS71BN5yevfEHM/w6tHsyvDNhV
	 PpqJ4Ne8f1UW9cibwdXBDsNOm/gWkMFtXL6taAz4=
From: "adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug libc/30558] SIGEV_THREAD is badly implemented
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 14:32:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.37
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-30558-131-e73AqGnasO@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-30558-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-30558-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30558

--- Comment #23 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot o=
rg> ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #21)
> Ok so this means your current patch
> needs to be applied, which is fine with
> me no matter what posix says or not says.
> So when would it be applied then?

I need to correctly handle pthread_exit on callback and think better how to
handle pthread_cancel (since it requires not now mask the signal).  musl re=
set
the thread state in this case (run dtor, reset tls, reinit internal state),=
 so
I am considering do the same. It avoid the caller to miss any timer due fai=
ling
in thread creation.

> Also please consider adding a check,
> either a macro or a runtime check, so
> that I can select between your impl
> and timerfd one (as old impl is completely
> broken and should never be selected)

I do not plan to provide multiple implementations nor implement on top of
timerfd (as I put on comment #7).

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=