Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools/nolibc: automatically detect necessity to use pselect6

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tools/nolibc: automatically detect necessity to use pselect6
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2023 05:07:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230917030733.GG9646@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230914-nolibc-syscall-nr-v1-4-e50df410da11@weissschuh.net>

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 06:01:20PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> We can automatically detect if pselect6 is needed or not from the kernel
> headers. This removes the need to manually specify it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>

That's indeed cleaner, I can't find the reason why we didn't do it
like this initially, I suspect that maybe we were having __NR_select
defined but not usable, I don't know. I've found it first introduced with
nolibc commit 28a7178 ("nolibc: fall back to pselect6() on aarch64"), and
the test was made before __NR_newselect, so maybe I wanted to be sure not
to use pselect6() in case another arch would define it.

Let's do as you propose, it's much cleaner and simpler. If we ever find
any breakage at least we'll know how to deal with it so I'm not worried.

Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

Thanks!
Willy

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv