Re: [PATCH v2] nptl: remove duplicate vfork() in libpthread

On Friday 31 July 2015 12:23 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On July 24, 2015 9:17:27 AM GMT+02:00, Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Friday 24 July 2015 09:26 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>> On July 22, 2015 5:05:34 PM GMT+02:00, Alexey Brodkin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>>> This patch indeed fixes problems with duplicate vfork in both libc
>> and
>>>>> libpthread.
>>>>> I'm wondering if there's a chance for this patch to be applied
>> still?
>>> Well, but it's wrong, isn't it. 
>> Is it ? It makes pthread also use the libc version. The only difference
>> between
>> them was pthread version had a small optimization which could be done
>> away
>> altogether with if u read thru the tread below.
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-05/msg00238.html
>>
>>> pt-vfork.o should instead live in, say,  libpthread_nonshared.a and
>> be at the end of the libs so it is picked up by the linker when static
>> linking, no?
>>
>> Could be done that way too but not needed if above is sufficient.
> Above makes RESET_PID superfluous, doesn't it.

RESET_PID applies to clone; while{SAVE,RESTORE}_PID apply to vfork. I presume u
meant latter ? Perhaps clone can be tweaked too - but thats for another patch !

Assuming above is correct, you want those macros to be removed from
nptl/*/**/vfork.S as well as libc/sysdeps/linux/*/vfork.S and preferably replace
with a comment in case of latter set of files.

Can this be done in 2 steps, so the first patch from Waldemar be applied as it is
and then we do the cleanup to remove _PID from all the files (or is it too much
churn cross arches)

After this, it would be even better if we get rid of the vfork files in NPTL as it
is confusing at best (as file building for libc resides in thread library). Why
not build libc/sysdeps/linux/*/vfork.S in place for libc. But you are better off
doing such project wide tweaks than us mere mortals.

Thx,
-Vineet

> Care to send an updated patch?
> Thanks,