On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/19/2016 02:16 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> On 19.08.2016 12:48, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >>> On 08/19/2016 03:14 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Andrey Ryabinin >>>> <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for delays, I am travelling. >>>>>> Do we need ".fini_array" section? It's also destructors that we don't >>>>>> run. Or does UML use them? Does discarding ".fini_array" help? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> libc has desctructors and use them for whatever purpose it needs. >>>> >>>> >>>> Does UML actually gracefully exit running global destructors? That >>>> would also require gracefully shutting down all threads/cpus. Doesn't >>>> it just _exit (or syscall(SYS_exit_group))? >>>> >>> >>> Sigh, I dunno, I didn't look that far. My intention was to fix build and keep old behavior unaffected. >>> If you want to wipe destructors, and think that this is ok, go ahead. >> >> UML exits like any regular C program does. >> The main() function is in arch/um/os-Linux/main.c, when the kernel terminates, >> hence linux_main() returns back to main() it just returns the exit code. >> At this point libc's destructors will run, right? >> > Sounds right to me. If it exits then Acked-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for taking care of it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html