From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ABBF382CB89 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 08:14:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5ABBF382CB89 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-636-mnFRouTONQ6HqlTY0zGDeA-1; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 04:14:43 -0400 X-MC-Unique: mnFRouTONQ6HqlTY0zGDeA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCFB21D33866 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 08:14:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.117]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293922166B29; Tue, 7 Jun 2022 08:14:41 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha Subject: Re: Monday Patch Queue Review update (2022-06-06) References: Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 10:14:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha's message of "Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:49:36 -0400") Message-ID: <877d5sq49c.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 08:14:45 -0000 * Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha: > * Noah: Why can't we use #define to define rseq offset? > * Noah: Florian isn't here, and I was going to ask him the question. This would make more of the thread descriptor/TCB layout part of the ABI. I guess we could do that for select ABIs if there is no concern about future alignment requirements (e.g., if a future TCB requires 128 byte alignment, the rseq offset is a multiple of 32 from the TCB, but not a multiple of 128, and a future rseq requires 64 byte alignment, we would be in trouble). Thanks, Florian