From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30524 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2012 16:38:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 30288 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2012 16:37:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f169.google.com) (209.85.223.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:37:49 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c14so1143938ieb.0 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:37:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=t2b3CRBF2BSe1HKgKtve+Imoopzgz+tlYbU4ObPK0uk=; b=TsRJhsmnn3bCJGEsrCBKndKAoktmt3oaD4zIv1S7CZZkx9rnQRX0kauYACABV4OX7y 1nE6gHYGnI0HlgTi2toIkslKw41ajABNac3uqmw0J1bvgjCutQuyo2uwOKmCjz19Tz7U Fao+S4w81CADE0OoMb3JPgZajBlTTsgzn/b+FrQYrHFx55PlkqHlF+K+tdDFPPdq3XeE IzNJHidoPq5w8xwGfadytmvNS+qvFm4ZvIwCzg28A7avVd8SJvZq1AT+1AMYolXzABUF Gw+nZm+xzznXpRW/hzHXrB77yT20wB0U2zgX3rrHFp5cmcQ+ouKJV3BBHNxjXQpzP1an AzMA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.152.197 with SMTP id va5mr1579886igb.12.1354293469087; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.43.77.135 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:37:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121130150057.GA14394@einval.com> References: <20121130150057.GA14394@einval.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache From: "Carlos O'Donell" To: Steve McIntyre Cc: libc-ports@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksvswVKzftqGmW1tYz5Dn6hfA6HmCQtmWvvvQOx5QeZuBUQGJUlS0kIBxrlukJ6Gd3b1oF X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On 28 November 2012 20:58, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:04:34PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>>Use the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 ldconfig cache tag for AArch64, >>>similarly to the way tags are handled for other architectures. >>> >>>======================================================== >>> >>>Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache >>> >>> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/dl-cache.h: New file. >>> >>>Signed-off-by: Steve McIntyre >> >> Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell >> >> This looks good to me. >> >> Markus, as the AArch64 maintainer, should have the final word and >> check it in. >> >> Feel free to include my Reviewed-by: in the git commit logs to track >> reviews. > > Hmmm, problem: this adds checking for the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 at > runtime in ld.so, but nobody has (yet!) committed the code that will > add that flag from ldconfig (in patch #3 in my set). That's partly my > fault for not stating a direct dependency, I guess, but we'll need to > fix that ASAP. Would you prefer to revert *this* patch or take that > one too? Thanks, I hadn't noticed the dependency. Please work on getting this fixed ASAP. We want AArch64 into 2.17. > Related to Joseph's comment about #1 in the set (tagging binaries > based on interpreter names): splitting up ARM and AArch64 patches. I > can easily split #1 that way if preferred, but to my mind it makes no > sense to split #3 as it's a lump of common code that will run on both > ARM and AArch64. What do people think about that, please? Split them up please. Push them out again for review, and CC me and Joseph. Cheers, Carlos.