From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-107675-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20262 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2019 19:04:51 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 20157 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2019 19:04:50 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=scenarios
X-HELO: mail-lj1-f194.google.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc;
        bh=HXqR+1a+h/y/sVZZ8usVzHai3jh/TVlJDlF+QM9ORfY=;
        b=fNnT21FB9JEogBzxepzWx421HZVCXxfnscCdqgjm2u9t0Dor5ObNZdPAcETxmveIJ4
         E13kTd6kVOwAHB0okY2JcpfXAavRHHdphTuOS9N7XGPWOwGLaniN5VMrg80aIgqnuBw+
         2GVsYcWharTvXSF4ls+ktdto0A/RoyeVIroG6SSiiFlWKwNp9UzU8LY2uFgwbb0LTABC
         OLc/giMYopWUFvFku+LdJMMLs681fM5FIbSYBpplHfAMd70uMDIFsU0UMc2nk6jFtzql
         uDQzUYEsGhzqCiSCCPkcnZBc0mYhSiSa3jPkdJRZr97yo5PllATnjdeXFJ2KfSDWHFAh
         DTFQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191114144704.19002-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <20191114144704.19002-5-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <ae1017d0-906c-7e76-b2e8-00f5f67e3281@linaro.org>
 <CAKmqyKOdTjQVMBeJM6p2rKNZSF+EF9WqYditZJ91FNapV4uSUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <a0b3de47-8f1b-e737-02bf-a1adeeb8b2d2@linaro.org> <CAKmqyKNOk_EPAo5Cr=2qUyVwEEGnRXRXwEm4oGVXUPd==NJ5mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <21e43b69-28a4-2d38-1faa-a4432f3cf255@linaro.org> <d5c03878-404a-888a-a9df-a491858b5de4@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <d5c03878-404a-888a-a9df-a491858b5de4@linaro.org>
From: Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:04:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAKmqyKMCjZD7rAX+FJoKq894sBhf7pjmfCh+j=GmOs_bWK1WDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] linux: Use waitid on wait4 if __NR_wait4 is not defined
To: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 4:42 AM Adhemerval Zanella
<adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25/11/2019 09:39, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> > So it seems that __ASSUME_WAITID_PID0_P_PGID should be a safe call to
> > avoid such theoretical scenarios.  I will rework how the flag is used
> > to mimic other assume usage where newer kernel version undef the flag,
> > so it should be simpler to remove it once the minimum kernel is lifted.
> >
>
> In fact I think change the __ASSUME_WAITID_PID0_P_PGID won't be much
> a improvement

Any update on this series?

Alistair