Re: [musl] Re: add loongarch64 port

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:11 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:03:13AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 5:27 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 12:30:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 3:31 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, if there aren't yet archs lacking SYS_clone, this API
> > > > > regression may be a good argument not to drop SYS_clone on new archs
> > > > > yet until there's a way for new archs to get the same behavior
> > > > > (unspecified stack size).
> > > >
> > > > That is a good point, but it also appears that the behavior of
> > > > clone3() is unintentional
> > > > here, I'm fairly sure it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for clone() with
> > > > additional features.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what the best fix for this is, as the check for size==0 was clearly
> > > > intentional, but seems to prevent this from working. A special flag to ignore
> > > > the size, or a magic size value like -1ull might work, but neither of them
> > > > is a great interface.
> > >
> > > Are there archs already affected, or will this one be the first?
> >
> > We have not added any other architectures since clone3 got added,
> > so this is the first one.
>
> In that case I really think __NR_clone should just be kept for now. It
> doesn't really cost anything on the kernel side and it avoids a
> dependency on working out how __NR_clone3 is going to fix the missing
> functionality.

Yes, fair enough.

        Arnd