From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SUBJ_OBFU_PUNCT_FEW autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 11956 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2020 12:55:35 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Nov 2020 12:55:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 29766 invoked by uid 550); 2 Nov 2020 12:55:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 29745 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2020 12:55:32 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1604321720; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=moZgqIFxja4d30+MA31FgAMQXa7teE6tmYggxGXbGMs=; b=Z4iuu16eDVXaHlZnQ84ph8ac3NZBB+wx+dR1RVl1jgoC13mk/SS5fRLOW/oMCd8DlANrLi waldsBLE8+rNCcbrKk450VYhPET8ZuFkT/yv6+pI34tjahqcj+n/FwPE1OHFzjWsvomDOD SSpPe8U+Qzs+/uryLm676MFBt9jLiYw= X-MC-Unique: lW03L611NWmKvwVIzgsHCg-1 From: Florian Weimer To: Michael Forney Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com References: <87h870hn0g.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 13:55:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Michael Forney's message of "Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:22:09 -0700") Message-ID: <87k0v3hqa5.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=fweimer@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [musl] Support SIGEV_THREAD_ID * Michael Forney: > On 2019-08-01, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * James Y. Knight: >> >>> There seems to be some debate in glibc over whether this API should be >>> supported, due to the long-standing debate about "pthread_t" vs >>> "kernel tid" APIs. (And this API uses kernel tids, of course.) >> >> The debate is over and has been decided in favor of supporting TIDs. We >> just have a backlog of interfaces for which we need to add support. > > Hi Florian, > > Am I interpreting you correctly that glibc intends to add a > sigev_notify_thread_id define to access this field in struct sigevent? > I plan to send a patch to qemu to use sigev_notify_thread_id over > _sigev_un.tid if it is available, and I just want to confirm that > glibc intends to follow suit before I mention that in the commit > message. I do not expect that we are going to add a sigev_notify_thread_id member once glibc implements the struct member. On common configurations, it's likely that we are going to use a different approach, using anonymous structs and unions. I think you will have to use a different mechanism for detecting the presence of the struct member. Thanks, Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill