On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:01:14AM +0100, David Henningsson wrote: > > On 2016-03-12 23:35, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > >Hello! > > > >The simplified memfd patch series ;-) > > Hi! > > Good work! > > I've read through the patch series and think they look pretty much okay, and > your amount of testing is exemplary. > Thanks a lot .. couldn't do it without everyone's help here :-) Also, regarding the testing, I really did not want to increase anyone's Launchpad bugfixing workload ;-) > Surely there are nitpicks here and there but at this point I think maybe > we're better off merging the patch series as it is to get wider testing from > developers using it in practice. > Great, I'll be around if there's anything in need of a fix. > My only concern or thought is about the global mempool. By turning that into > a memfd by default, we would potentially slow down clients which support > posix shm but not memfd. I'm not sure if this is a problem in practice > though - even an old closed-source client would (hopefully?) bind to a new > libpulse library and thus gain memfd support that way, and I hope nobody > links libpulse statically. Thoughts? > Alexander mentioned the SteamOS case, where "they don't link statically, but have a 'known-good' copy of the library packaged and put into LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and it may be next to impossible to explain to the users how to upgrade it." I'm sure though that even if they have a 'known-good' copy, they keep the daemon version in-sync with the library version? I can't think of any sane reason not to do so.. Anyway, if that case is indeed problematic, maybe we can lobby them a bit to do a proper distribution of PA? If anyone has some contacts, I'll be glad to open a communication channel.. Thanks, -- Darwish http://darwish.chasingpointers.com
