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. > Thanks, > //richard > -- 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