From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x730.google.com (mail-qk1-x730.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4223E3874C30 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:59:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 4223E3874C30 Received: by mail-qk1-x730.google.com with SMTP id x10so20619254qkm.8 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 05:59:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=o8y/Tpd4s/TkGfoNpO/kfRSycPVb840FAKDX8HJmsTY=; b=uQkVCT/is/1hReO83sy3uInNcA8P1rROoBAJzBZvBENdNV2gGC7NQiS2kTDlsT7Vpk MLruu2q5huP4nrq1rm6CvYx+Xvm54kl4KIWHi73F79jsmhXkPmQnSKlNvv3OrP4Qc6bJ s4/uxg90nyOCzoc+KFenAieDjCc1ZbHy0rspic9AxEAj53tNnDHP5i4rSnY9Sfo2X7qo SlOgNmN0JIL8jKz/2qeByrxmVp1JPo31xE6a9Bs9gC2Iyeew6tY81zx9r+01RFkSbUTi eBtNnaYzlP0lfE/TiftsQAOUIEqZDZqSmAiE0dmAEYoYPZT1H/+nB9egcpF+GX8MyvoF l4PA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306KXL7LARncoetL//KJPzEd5IHo+luECvh8cf5yLT57Y9PtKgA AuAOh4beJ3EL8xpHbOtzWPo5hpoLrzol3IFD X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxnohfzytDMHlUNdvKDYeGBsuI7DBhp5rpj7nvsoicirlLls6lESWEBvdQWEqa8Bz6aB84TUw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:c11:: with SMTP id l17mr7685127qki.487.1615471144745; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 05:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([177.194.48.209]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id o89sm1776914qte.84.2021.03.11.05.59.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 05:59:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] posix: Consolidate fork implementation To: Andreas Schwab , Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha References: <20210202151134.2123748-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20210202151134.2123748-3-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <87h7lhokti.fsf@igel.home> From: Adhemerval Zanella Message-ID: <63cab53f-59dc-7870-3649-45ba8a4c3ffc@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:59:02 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87h7lhokti.fsf@igel.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:59:06 -0000 On 11/03/2021 10:56, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Feb 02 2021, Adhemerval Zanella via Libc-alpha wrote: > >> +pid_t >> +__libc_fork (void) >> { >> - __set_errno (ENOSYS); >> - return -1; >> + /* Determine if we are running multiple threads. We skip some fork >> + handlers in the single-thread case, to make fork safer to use in >> + signal handlers. POSIX requires that fork is async-signal-safe, >> + but our current fork implementation is not. */ > > The last sentence is now obsolete, isn't it? It is, I will remove it.