From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 38976 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2016 20:18:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 38967 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2016 20:18:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*i:sk:1481308, H*MI:sk:1481308, tot, H*f:sk:1481308 X-HELO: mail-ua0-f171.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+QqgeSl6f548KxyXko6bapplqFDpZWMN7sHI3T+2e/Q=; b=W+kLZpg4pGoYc2W/UewFfjfINhJOyYD5JDIWUALZjABy4ICv34sibK4a3SXh1+VyWm lyViCijEAzSbVbmeylopytT+JvOQLgogYTwMrhP5jbOYtnjh9AE6AG9nlt+G8/KnrfZw E8cr5wD3IvZtsVMCNEKxfco2nLeZPrs3tJ3V24iUUNtA4noy2Z0cHxElEPZmKEi2Cwq5 5XOd1aIKj6GyQWdI+31hm2PmZefXMPTDz801On1HSVM4lEypPsMw2i0oJUFcIuvMWYkb PfwEFEp7A1NZm8eafXkHMe4/LmDmeOlxF9M2CoaIMM1TllmjvQXFfAAPzlJ2w4lBTPxz H4tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02I17ISPDqLDzyErJK2ZMRsgiJAr81BVmBF3C2/PNWOrwZsR44InY9VQ9zQijKpIHI5 X-Received: by 10.176.82.214 with SMTP id w22mr63049306uaw.167.1481314680099; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 12:18:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Consolidate Linux sysvipc implementation To: Steve Ellcey , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <1481308253.29811.77.camel@caviumnetworks.com> From: Adhemerval Zanella Message-ID: <4420709d-82a0-8a94-5b35-cc498db52a37@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 20:18:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1481308253.29811.77.camel@caviumnetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 On 09/12/2016 16:30, Steve Ellcey wrote: > 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. Yes, I did not rebase against new source changes and looks like I will need to do so. And it is worth a v4, so I will send it a new set for review. > > 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). If this is the correct value for ILP32 I will add, but from Arnd reply it might an issue with your kernel config. > > 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. My idea is to push this next week to avoid issues with cutoff date. > > Steve Ellcey > sellcey@caviumnetworks.com >