On 01/22/21 22:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

> I'm drifting towards an overhaul of coroutine-sigaltstack, based on my
> personal understanding of POSIX, but given that I can absolutely not
> *test* coroutine-sigaltstack on the platforms where it actually matters,
> an "overhaul" by me would be reckless.
> 
> I didn't expect these skeletons when I first read Max's "Thread safety
> of coroutine-sigaltstack" email :/
> 
> Max, after having worked on top of your patch for a few hours, I
> officially endorse your mutex approach. I can't encourage you or myself
> to touch this code, in good conscience. It's not that it's "bad"; it's
> inexplicable and (to me) untestable.

I'm attaching a patch (based on 0e3246263068). I'm not convinced that I
should take responsibility for this, given the lack of testability on my
end. So I'm not posting it stand-alone even as an RFC. I've built it and
have booted one of my existent domains with it, but that's all.

Thanks
Laszlo