This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Async-signal-safe access to __thread variables from dlopen()ed libraries?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Andrew Hunter <ahh at google dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:59:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: Async-signal-safe access to __thread variables from dlopen()ed libraries?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20120612193224 dot 8E43619060E at elbrus2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <4FD8D974 dot 7090903 at twiddle dot net> <20120613182826 dot 0CFAB2C0A3 at topped-with-meat dot com> <CALoOobMtXCw+oe7ZL0=my8YH5st8b1==CasS8i07z6G9DfaX-w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20120613210444 dot 659732C095 at topped-with-meat dot com> <mcr4nqebzok dot fsf at dhcp-172-18-216-180 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20120614002931 dot ABB762C08B at topped-with-meat dot com> <mcr1uliaeep dot fsf at dhcp-172-18-216-180 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <CALoOobPJ7G7ciRfc2JwzHjsDTg4-_h-SXqeU1zR4WEzoyQhyNg at mail dot gmail dot com> <523BD470 dot 6090203 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8y85QBkd97cEEmP-4OgE2KizCqknrVR_n44pwBGMs5uAw at mail dot gmail dot com> <523C88D1 dot 6090304 at redhat dot com> <CAKOQZ8ze1zKdQRsMsmBCqnJr361Gvv8mYjLjGgzYwWJEKUY+7w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 09/20/2013 01:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> * Work with the community to ensure consensus around an
>> acceptable solution.
>
> To be clear, Google already has a patch, as Paul mentioned in the
> message that restarted this thread. And frankly I thought this idea
> was a slam dunk if it could be implemented, and I'm surprised to see
> so much resistance. At this point I have to say that the community
> does not seem interested, so my inclination would be to skip it and
> just do something that works internally. That is disappointing but it
> is quite possible that I am missing something about this issue.
I'm disappointed that after a couple of email exchanges you appear to
be about to call it quits.
As far as I can tell we're having a good discussion around some points
that I raised.
What you're missing is that not everyone agrees with you, and that
glibc is a consensus driven community. We don't want one Overlord that
accepts patches from Google and checks them in as they see fit.
We talk about things. We hash it out. We put in a good solution.
You sir appear to be threatening to leave because we didn't agree
outright. It's true the unspoken expectations lead to frustration.
I've started a wiki page and I'll summarize people's comments there:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/TLSandSignals
All I can say is that if you stick around we'll see it through to
some kind of solution.
Cheers,
Carlos.