[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] nilfs-utils: need NPTL threads
Thomas Petazzoni
thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com
Fri Jan 5 10:31:42 UTC 2018
Hello,
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:17:08 +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote:
> > The UCLIBC_HAS_ADVANCED_REALTIME help text says that this options enables
> > clock_nanosleep(). But with current code you must have NPTL enabled for
> > clock_nanosleep(). So the help text is not correct.
> >
> > This also means that architectures lack NPTL support can't have
> > clock_nanosleep() at all. Is there a reason for that?
>
> I share the concern, I appears that a shortcut has been taken in the
> uClibc configuration.
>
> OTOH, the topic of this thread has drifted away.
> From the nilfs-utils point of view, depending on NPTL is necessary
> today, so the patch stands.
> I propose to start a different thread, and merge this patch for
> nilfs-utils. Doing so would fix the current build problems,
> and when the uclibc problem eventually resolves, nilfs-utils too will be
> patched to not depend on NPTL.
>
> What do you think about that?
I agree. Especially since the same problem affects other packages, and
we have already added a NPTL dependency for those. When/if the uClibc
problem is fixed, we can get back to those packages and remove the NPTL
dependency if clock_nanosleep() becomes usable without NPTL.
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
More information about the buildroot
mailing list