Re: [PATCH 1/2] alpha: Remove "strange" OSF/1 fork semantics
From: Richard Henderson
Date: Wed Jul 30 2014 - 19:07:18 EST
On 07/30/2014 12:04 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Richard Henderson <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> The assignment to regs->r20 kills the original tls_val input
>> to the clone syscall, which means that clone can no longer be
>> restarted with the original inputs.
>> We could, perhaps, retain this result for true fork, but OSF/1
>> compatibility is no longer important. Note that glibc has never
>> used the r20 result value, instead always testing r0 vs 0 to
>> determine the child/parent status.
> What effect does this have on OSF/1 compat?
I don't know, as I've never had access to osf/1 myself. It depends on how that
$20 value is used -- potentially, fork(3) no longer works.
I can imagine that we could retain these assignments under the condition of
clone_flags == 0, which both implies a basic fork as well as the fact that the
tls_val argument is unused.
But I do have to ask first if anyone actually cares. Surely the amount of
osf-on-linux emulation is a vanishingly small proportion of the already small
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html