Hi! On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 03:14:33PM GMT, Joe Damato wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 11:44:10PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Sure. I used a different pattern with prctl(2)s, so let's use a mix. > > Do the ioctl_*.2 tradition, but also add link pages with the names of > > the actual operations (which will allow to search directly for the man > > pages of the individual operations). > > Thanks for your careful review. I will make the changes you > suggested for the v2. Thank you. > > > > Based on the current status of glibc, I would assume that this change will > > > be part of glibc 2.40 (it is listed under 2.40 in the NEWS section), which > > > may be released in a few months [3]. > > > > If you're certain that this will be part of glibc 2.40, I'm fine merging > > it already. We can always patch it if something changes. > > I have no idea if I can be certain of that. I am not a maintainer > nor do I have commit access to glibc, so I truly have no idea. > > I suppose it is possible that they may decide to cut glibc 2.40 from > before my patch went in? It does not seem there is any 2.40 tag yet, > AFAICT. > > How about I proceed by making all the changes you've requested and > get the patch into a shape where it can be merged. Hopefully, > that'll only take one (or two ;) more revisions. > > Once the patch is in good shape, then we can decide whether to merge > or wait for glibc 2.40? If they are releasing it in 8/2024, it's not > too long to wait. > > Does that seem OK to you? Yep, that's fine. If you know who merged your patch, maybe you can CC him/her? Have a lovely night! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
