From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E07C43441 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B2F22510 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:15:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 23B2F22510 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387851AbeKNBOT (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:14:19 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f194.google.com ([209.85.222.194]:39075 "EHLO mail-qk1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387822AbeKNBOR (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:14:17 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id q70so2444742qkh.6 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:15:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp :organization:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tx49J2syjhWOEueDdZkU118sh/wS8PhhlwJCc02l8bg=; b=blnlYpSd5WmP/08xukvxBM40ugSkkgTl5Es0mnwW5SPFyyQ9TadxBnkBiMSKTaEgX8 OQnZkPoPPrB6VPIxdARaG2dJlC4PaUEt4eEHpcIJNv8S5I752AiODWUgS1+Ap4hTnvqI K9LVRdVrvz4J/XRWkJ9dwXy2zOBEKzR0v1gJfAIuOdJZK3I3IwaZw4sLSExgv9hfs734 2DxMRQ2Hm+vweDDexu3rP+86JskTHPMK9MUfSPPW9hshm3jmwJhogVvp2bJEQwMwsMiV 89VR7istZpLmJMNep1Uv5iiN+knn4cnCjzmAqK4IhJskfkLXFfwlE28gC9/SwHp3PJJh n52A== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gK6ZasSuOaCHP1O67VxzMpdAyNlXroeQ68wpZ8MJGP4/N8pV1P0 dowrKPwhONhBghEuiIHO6dopWQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5czo3Hm3F0rzsetw51D8BYE8A7ov9SUHGAVrb20OvsdkQNTUAC6jEQLgYR4oWDVHHEAvUMFog== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f9c3:: with SMTP id j3mr5703733qvo.107.1542122142800; Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:15:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.150.73.190] (161.sub-174-227-144.myvzw.com. [174.227.144.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z8sm5073239qto.45.2018.11.13.07.15.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:15:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Official Linux system wrapper library? To: Joseph Myers , Florian Weimer Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Willy Tarreau , Daniel Colascione , linux-kernel , Joel Fernandes , Linux API , Vlastimil Babka , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" References: <20181111081725.GA30248@1wt.eu> <3664a508-ca74-4ff0-39a6-34543194a24e@gmail.com> <878t1zx4gj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> From: Carlos O'Donell Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <85ce01c3-0704-b915-e591-437a051d371c@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:15:39 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/12/18 11:43 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> People may have disappeared from glibc development who have objected to >> gettid. I thought this was the case with strlcpy/strlcat, but it was >> not. > > Well, I know of two main people who were objecting to the notion of adding > bindings for all non-obsolescent syscalls, Linux-specific if not suitable > for adding to the OS-independent GNU API, and neither seems to have posted > in the past year. > >> At present, it takes one semi-active glibc contributor to block addition >> of a system call. The process to override a sustained objection has >> never been used successfully, and it is a lot of work to get it even >> started. > > We don't have such a process. (I've suggested, e.g. in conversation with > Carlos at the Cauldron, that we should have something involving a > supermajority vote of the GNU maintainers for glibc in cases where we're > unable to reach a consensus in the community as a whole.) ... and I need a good excuse to propose such a process :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.