[PATCH v2] nptl: remove duplicate vfork() in libpthread

[Vineet Gupta]

On Thursday 17 September 2015 01:05 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On September 17, 2015 12:09:17 AM GMT+02:00, Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1 at synopsys.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bernhard,
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 04 August 2015 01:42 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>> On Friday 31 July 2015 12:23 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>> On July 24, 2015 9:17:27 AM GMT+02:00, Vineet Gupta
>> <Vineet.Gupta1 at synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday 24 July 2015 09:26 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> On July 22, 2015 5:05:34 PM GMT+02:00, Alexey Brodkin
>>>>> <Alexey.Brodkin at synopsys.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Bernard,
>>>>>>>> This patch indeed fixes problems with duplicate vfork in both
>> libc
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> libpthread.
>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if there's a chance for this patch to be applied
>>>>> still?
>>>>>> Well, but it's wrong, isn't it. 
>>>>> Is it ? It makes pthread also use the libc version. The only
>> difference
>>>>> between
>>>>> them was pthread version had a small optimization which could be
>> done
>>>>> away
>>>>> altogether with if u read thru the tread below.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-05/msg00238.html
>>>>>
>>>>>> pt-vfork.o should instead live in, say,  libpthread_nonshared.a
>> and
>>>>> be at the end of the libs so it is picked up by the linker when
>> static
>>>>> linking, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could be done that way too but not needed if above is sufficient.
>>>> Above makes RESET_PID superfluous, doesn't it.
>>>
>>> RESET_PID applies to clone; while{SAVE,RESTORE}_PID apply to vfork. I
>> presume u
>>> meant latter ? Perhaps clone can be tweaked too - but thats for
>> another patch !
>>>
>>> Assuming above is correct, you want those macros to be removed from
>>> nptl/*/**/vfork.S as well as libc/sysdeps/linux/*/vfork.S and
>> preferably replace
>>> with a comment in case of latter set of files.
>>>
>>> Can this be done in 2 steps, so the first patch from Waldemar be
>> applied as it is
>>> and then we do the cleanup to remove _PID from all the files (or is
>> it too much
>>> churn cross arches)
> 
> 2-step is fine for me too, as you prefer.

Waldermar's patch below while still valid, doesn't apply cleanly due to conflict
in a line(s) nuked already by your cleanup patch. Care to apply below with manual
fixups.
http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-September/048613.html


Regarding removing _PID stuff - I took a stab at it - so we inline the code
corresponding to {SAVE,RESTORE}_PID macros, however then it won't be valid/build
for LT.old - since tls.h / tcb_offset.h are not present there.

-Vineet