This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN/INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:21:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Add INLINE_SYSCALL_RETURN/INLINE_SYSCALL_ERROR_RETURN
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150814120014 dot GA28610 at gmail dot com> <87oaiavy2c dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOoP9GPP+i6xbAXwHffwr+KOKNhV=FsJ5sx=G2bM_1SE+g at mail dot gmail dot com> <87oai9vkg7 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqPmsPPR7RPbdhMKh-cRxK_J2dphmECdvq0QHtfnLgz0w at mail dot gmail dot com> <87k2sxvjh8 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOrbhzbxg2ed3w0i7zE7=KM1q37DtR1vAY_Lk=rxsJ_8mA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87d1ypvixm dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqEpVE3X-drZp6W6UESV0CCAtY3Qew+SPOt1b7Y9BNwfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <878u9dvh61 dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAMe9rOqNhBrGkJCkp5xT8DebN68qzoZciWtSZzGhYo1Msyv3TQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqZ=4B698SouQm=fTLaZvsqStQRYyMMhjPNCKMbjK1Xmw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOqNodDbB2mi4SU6agR=-qK0yfRHyFq7BiwBeWre-gJ1tw at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508211502380 dot 2039 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMe9rOrLUBih4UOrn=bb9uwi29y1FzzYUTwxHxLwRQHzYjZDZQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508211612030 dot 2039 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> My first patch is mechanical and there are no changes in generated code.
>
> It's not mechanical, as evidenced by all the problems people have spotted
> looking at the code (presumably cases that don't apply on i386) and the
> random inclusion of *_hidden_* changes with no apparent relation to the
> main point of the patch.
>
>> We can either revert my changes or fix my changes.
>>
>> I believe my change is an improvement and we should fix its shortcomings.
>
> I think the fix process should not happen on master, but a separate
> branch, with the changes being reverted until they have consensus.
>
> This isn't a matter of fixing isolated bugs that a reviewer missed - if it
> were just that, then fixing on master would be fine. It's a matter of
> there being no consensus on the basic design of the changes or the overall
> shape of the new interfaces being introduced (and no detailed review of
> the changes either).
I did my work on a branch, which lead us here. I can take out
the libc_hidden_def change in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sched_getaffinity.c
which makes my change pure mechanical.
--
H.J.