Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Consolidate Linux sysvipc implementation

[Steve Ellcey <sellcey@caviumnetworks.com>]

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 17:13 -0200, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> Ping x2.
> 
> > On 08/11/2016 18:29, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > > 
> > > Changes from previous version:
> > > 
> > >   - Refactor ipc_priv.h header to have working definition for all
> > >     architectures.  The header basically contains Linux specific
> > >     ABI definitions for the architecture to correctly use default
> > >     implementation, including old ipc_perm definition, calling
> > >     convention, and __IPC_64 value.
> > > 
> > >   - Set all architectures to use the default implementation.  It
> > >     leaded to some code changes to accomodate all the
> > > architectures
> > >     calling convention (with ipc_priv.h change) and some fixes
> > >     on new default implementation.
> > > 
> > >   - Change mips64 implementation way to use the default one.
> > > 
> > >   - Some tests changes (name typos).
> > > 
> > > --

Adhemerval,

It looks like you may have to tweek your change to test-skeleton.c in
this patch.  The FAIL_EXIT macro was moved from test-skeleton.c
to support/check.h so I assume your new FAIL_UNSUPPORTED macro should
be moved there as well.

I have been doing aarch64 and x86 builds here with your patch and have
not had any problems except with my new aarch64 ILP32 code.  There I
had to change the definition of __IPC_64 in the new header
file sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/ipc_priv.h from:

#define __IPC_64     0x0

to:

#ifdef __LP64__
# define __IPC_64     0x0
#else /* __ILP32  */
# define __IPC_64     0x100
#endif

I don't know if that is something that you want to incorporate into
your patch or if I should leave it as part of my overall aarch64 ILP32
patch.   Right now it is hard to include it in my patch since that
header file isn't in the official sources yet (being a new file in your
patch).

Hopefully someone will approve your patch soon and then I can just
build my patch on ToT instead of having to also include your patch.
I don't see any other problems with your patch myself but I am not that
familiar with this part of glibc so I would like to see someone else
review/approve this patch before you check it in but I would also like
to see it checked in soon so that I can move ahead with my aarch64
ILP32 patches before we get too close to the GLIBC 2.25 cutoff date.

Steve Ellcey
sellcey@caviumnetworks.com