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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 EA7C11F461 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:58:24 +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:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=Bn+60MjyXjfwDDej UpooyulD7TaJBskRQajXE6/SrPFNCti0hbEFyT2SEjENdpKM/6fPbaIBRG4FbVD7 meBehVOVFKX/2i10ifNq9SUU2numiLT1zkPZyueXRjdeePuxitCiiMLnMHfj/NJA zjZTNtwR6NfZ/o14gJHcMcIzTLU= 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:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=/F4+z+eAsuu+bXMDpea2SX OoKrY=; b=h916PCUnAM1PAZBPFdwTGTcA3nqsXbO7eu60J0L+wfM4uUdxR/dlNJ cbJ+CI/OlY7ATx5PnzSOEqSbDlL5jlkdK5S4nRdDfARPJ27q6N2vQ/wqM++EM3ED Jx7vSH+RK6cGCEve8Jzaexl8Vv1SVuIhDVAJVGJuI4687CcWaLI+0= Received: (qmail 23818 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2019 20:58:22 -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 23804 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jun 2019 20:58:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: mail-qk1-f194.google.com Subject: Re: glibc at the Toolchains microconference at LPC 2019 To: Christian Brauner , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Florian Weimer , Zack Weinberg Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" References: <87o92kibdz.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <20190626163908.GA13251@altlinux.org> <87imss1e13.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> From: Carlos O'Donell Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:58:14 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/26/19 4:39 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > Difficult to get reviewers in the sense of kernel people who wrote > the syscalls? I'm trying as hard as I can to bridge the libc/kernel > barrier by always cc'ing e.g. Florian or Dmitry and ask for input on > what you need. I'm happy to work as closely as I can. Anyone can review patches on libc-alpha, and provide a "Reviewed-by" sign-off. With enough of these the patch gains consensus that the right people have agreed to it. This make subsequent review even easier if I know the original author of the syscall signs off on the glibc implementation as meeting their expectations. For syscall patches we generally want a peer review from another glibc developer who knows the interfaces and is looking for any mistakes, or missing information e.g. versions, internal macro usage, docs, test case usage etc. So in summary: - A nod from the original syscall author that their expectations are translated into userspace. - A nod from another glibc developer as a "belt-and-suspenders" that the patch doens't have any problems. That's enough for a commit to master in my book. -- Cheers, Carlos.