Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:02:25 +0200 From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, Petr Salinger <Petr.Salinger@seznam.cz> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve LinuxThreads compatibility in rfork() Message-ID: <CAOfDtXPA4Wz12h2ePxdHM8H%2BDeVoW1112dG2C=xBjTXpmR-RKQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110711133342.GT43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <CAOfDtXMe_pkBdAFpUdvzmfs38Re=nw_YBz4w0Va0naEcuak7iw@mail.gmail.com> <20110711123332.GS43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.LRH.2.02.1107111455230.7134@sci.felk.cvut.cz> <20110711133342.GT43872@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/7/11 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: > I shall state that the sig == SIGCHLD case is ugly. Having the separate > flag "do not send signal to the parent" would be much less clumsy. > What are the requirements for the ABI stability for Debian/kFreeBSD ? > Can this be fixed now, or is it too late ? Perhaps we could make a smooth transition by implementing both methods on our kernel, then update glibc to use the new one, and only remove the deprecated method in our kernel after a full release cycle. Petr, do you think this could fly? We'd be breaking backward compatibility in userland, but if I understand correctly we do this already and our only supported upgrade path is "first upgrade kernel, then userland" anyway. -- Robert Millan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfDtXPA4Wz12h2ePxdHM8H%2BDeVoW1112dG2C=xBjTXpmR-RKQ>