On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:22:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:29:19 -0700 Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Introduce a new CONFIG_HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS for architectures to opt > > into, and a new copy_thread_tls that accepts the tls parameter as an > > additional unsigned long (syscall-argument-sized) argument. > > Change sys_clone's tls argument to an unsigned long (which does > > not change the ABI), and pass that down to copy_thread_tls. > > > > Architectures that don't opt into copy_thread_tls will continue to > > ignore the C argument to sys_clone in favor of the pt_regs captured at > > kernel entry, and thus will be unable to introduce new versions of the > > clone syscall. > > What happens quite frequently is that we do something for x86 with the > expectation that other architectures will follow along, but this > doesn't happen. The arch maintainers simply didn't know about it or > nobody nags them. Nothing happens and inconsistencies hang around for > years. eg, http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1504.2/04993.html > > I'm thinking we should find a way to do this better. One way might be > to maintain a Documentation/arch-todo which identifies each item, has a > little list of what-to-do instructions and perhaps a list of the > not-yet-done architectures. Basically a way for everyone to > communicate at the arch maintainers. If only there was a linux-arch list to which arch maintainers should subscribe... oh wait :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
