On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:14:53AM +0200, Petr Salinger wrote: > >>IMO, my suggested change (Perl_atfork_reinit) in "Message #54" [1] > >>still should be aplied by perl upstream. While it might not be > >>problem for this testcase, the unlocking in forked child is fragile. > > > >Hi, > > > >I finally (!) got round to submitting this upstream, at [1], and the > >comment so far is that the patch isn't appropriate. If you have any > >further thoughts, could you comment on the upstream RT ticket? > > If I remember correctly, the perl code expects something which is > not guaranteed by POSIX. But our new implementation provides this, > therefore we (kfreebsd) are not affected by this any longer.
Indeed, although at one time you argued that it was a correctness fix anyway. We seem to have a consensus that that's not the case, so closing this. Cheers, Dominic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
