From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F75A1F461 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:39:33 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:cc:from :message-id; q=dns; s=default; b=n2Tkh8QxEQyugcFlI6O48EUNnLckHG2 /qviQOXbPxsni9xJlQpfVaaSth9x7CXJHZpTFRlc4iA3ivnS0eEiq1m7GiceyKVJ 3eqG1WBSKxwuxuyFzM1s3b8Za/Qwma/4Egutw3KuEXB4RsgSVYRtNtWZPsjai+gY 9EEzGuFFvJ+Y= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:cc:from :message-id; s=default; bh=fOvbACykCV1E/XkFpOxpjvOgYgg=; b=RmmkL pW4fAZkYkR33F6w4Kqgtq8zum12LWuNv8novaWuO16WiFMcGM8sAp/0etVfEDAj3 vjoEqRbkCOXrL8QIML0/PsMzYuUv9QB5N4oRUZuXPMgE3/zXybaxxBiqISqdNY4w ZlxTL2NJaDg2Vc6g8acZIiU3MQHKfl/5MvTB28= Received: (qmail 129969 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2019 20:39:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 129961 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jun 2019 20:39:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-io1-f65.google.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brauner.io; s=google; h=date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:cc:from:message-id; bh=dih79XcYOMDrLfPPbHxK6W8NLwy4m0lI3cAG5P6Nzjk=; b=fgoNnxmnfEfWJSJQV2Ss3D2CF+ba6dStkiBJB5K7jwpCxAM865nTYXtC5hYm44pjCz cNAGA0m8yw9TlCyGwRh96q/NaIud6vpYxkYbh/2M42qid+z7+4k6hmC1+wXLMuhaZIRX Uy2twiL/HtS703pfLVbi0slvtOqfmNVAp63mTIYB+UqHKmNQEkokQiO7AeZvcHNgvM6U 75Bf8zcZ+5THyPQKHm6lbk4Mb+niT+JLO85e8jBxsedLeq0A0o92P1WnS3MVQ3iUhuYt QDil1ZO0D5VLLgYLevk7kRXSjawm/2tB7r0rckIgM+SZUIYLWPydKqCVEUTJVg5uycbG RGnQ== Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 22:39:19 +0200 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <87o92kibdz.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190626163908.GA13251@altlinux.org> <87imss1e13.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: glibc at the Toolchains microconference at LPC 2019 To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org,Carlos O'Donell ,Florian Weimer ,Zack Weinberg CC: "Dmitry V. Levin" ,GNU C Library From: Christian Brauner Message-ID: On June 26, 2019 10:33:37 PM GMT+02:00, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >On 6/26/19 12:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Zack Weinberg: >>=20 >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:39 PM Dmitry V=2E Levin >wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 06:01:28PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >>>>> glibc system call wrappers are on the agenda: >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Will anyone from the glibc community attend and can set the right >>>>> expectations? >>>> >>>> What are the right expectations? >>> >>> Well, _I_ think glibc should provide wrappers for all Linux system >>> calls, except those that cannot be used without stomping on internal >>> glibc data structures (e=2Eg=2E set_tid_address, set_robust_list, brk) >and >>> those that have been completely superseded by newer syscalls=2E Other >>> people have disagreed with me pretty strenuously, but they haven't >>> done any of the work required to make forward progress on their more >>> conservative policies=2E I am tempted to post a patch early in the >2=2E31 >>> cycle that adds wrappers for everything, and then threaten to apply >it >>> unilaterally unless I hear concrete objections within a week or so=2E >>=20 >> In my experience, it's been difficult to get reviewers=2E So what the >> project says it wants and what the project actually makes happen is >> rather different=2E > >It is difficult to get reviewers for *all* patches=2E > >Therefore I don't think this is particular to syscall wrappers=2E > >I've tried hard to review many of your syscall wrappers and make good >on the promise we gave to the kernel community that we would do so=2E > >Lastly, if you do reviews please provide your "Reviewed-by" markers >since it will let me run metrics on how many people we have reviewing >and who they are, and use that information to for a long-term strategy >for getting more reviewers=2E > >> There is currently a requirement that every wrapper needs a manual >entry >> (and, presumably, a test case, although I have not tested the waters >on >> that)=2E membarrier is not included only because we could not agree on >> the manual text=2E > >And rightly so=2E I would hope that we all agree that we need >documentation >and testing of interfaces in order to provide our users with the >information >they need to use these interfaces=2E Difficult to get reviewers in the sense of kernel people who wrote the sys= calls? I'm trying as hard as I can to bridge the libc/kernel barrier by always cc'ing e=2Eg=2E Florian or Dmitry and ask for input on what you need=2E I'm happy to work as closely as I can=2E Christian