Re: [patches] [RFC] RISC-V: Don't set CLONE_BACKWARDS

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:11:45 PST (-0800), hch@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:27:56PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > During the glibc upstreaming it was suggested that CLONE_BACKWARDS was a
> > deprecated ABI decision.  I think we just copied it from ARM, but I
> > don't see any reason to favor one over the other.
> >
> > While we haven't released yet so I think it's still legal to change our
> > ABI, I'd actually kind of prefer to avoid changing our ABI this late in
> > the game.  I guess this is more of an RFC than a patch: is there a
> > reason to avoid CLONE_BACKWARDS?
> >
> > Note that I haven't tried any of this -- I'll give it some thourough
> > testing and submit an actual patch if this is the way we want to go.
>
> I see absolutely no reason to change this.  Linux currently has 30
> architecture port, out of which 10 (including riscv, i386, arm and arm64)
> set CLONE_BACKWARDS.
>
> There are no performance benefits of doing it one way or another, and
> changing it now will break all the riscv enablement that's been going
> on.

OK, works for me!  Unless anyone has a strong argument against CLONE_BACKWARDS 
we're just going to leave it alone.