This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 0/4] Restartable Sequences support for glibc 2.30
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at efficios dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:51:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Restartable Sequences support for glibc 2.30
- References: <20190212194253.1951-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <878sx6n70n.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <5a0a348e-f846-f434-3bf2-724ad7678ec0@redhat.com>
* Carlos O'Donell:
> On 3/22/19 1:39 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Mathieu Desnoyers:
>>
>>> The only point that still appears to not reach concensus is whether it's
>>> acceptable to define the RSEQ_SIG code signature for each architecture.
>>> If I missed other points that failed to reach concensus, please let me
>>> know!
>>
>> I still think the registration mechanism is very problematic and
>> should be avoided.
>
> The *entire* registration mechanism?
The reference-counting part. It's going to be of limited use, for a
few years at most, and we'll have to carry it forward indefinitely.
I don't think it's worth the complexity.