On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:47:49AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:41 AM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 5:01 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 3:38 PM Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch adds system call support and related uaccess.h for LoongArch.
> > > >
> > > > Q: Why keep __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT definition while there is statx:
> > > > A: Until the latest glibc release (2.34), statx is only used for 32-bit
> > > > platforms, or 64-bit platforms with 32-bit timestamp. I.e., Most 64-
> > > > bit platforms still use newstat now.
> > > >
> > > > Q: Why keep _ARCH_WANT_SYS_CLONE definition while there is clone3:
> > > > A: The latest glibc release (2.34) has some basic support for clone3 but
> > > > it isn't complete. E.g., pthread_create() and spawni() have converted
> > > > to use clone3 but fork() will still use clone. Moreover, some seccomp
> > > > related applications can still not work perfectly with clone3.
> > >
> > > Please leave those out of the mainline kernel support though: Any users
> > > of existing glibc binaries can keep using patched kernels for the moment,
> > > and then later drop those pages when the proper glibc support gets
> > > merged.
> > The glibc commit d8ea0d0168b190bdf138a20358293c939509367f ("Add an
> > internal wrapper for clone, clone2 and clone3") modified nearly
> > everything in order to move to clone3(), except arch_fork() which used
> > by fork(). And I cannot find any submitted patches to solve it. So I
> > don't think this is just a forget, maybe there are other fundamental
> > problems?
>
> I don't think there are fundamental issues, they probably did not consider
> it necessary because so far all architectures supported clone().
>
> Adding Christian Brauner and H.J. Lu for clarificatoin.
Probably, yes. I don't know of any fundamental problems there either.
