During the glibc upstreaming it was suggested that CLONE_BACKWARDS was a deprecated ABI decision. I think we just copied it from ARM, but I don't see any reason to favor one over the other.
While we haven't released yet so I think it's still legal to change our ABI, I'd actually kind of prefer to avoid changing our ABI this late in the game. I guess this is more of an RFC than a patch: is there a reason to avoid CLONE_BACKWARDS? Note that I haven't tried any of this -- I'll give it some thourough testing and submit an actual patch if this is the way we want to go. CC: Adhemerval Zanella <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> --- arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig index 2c6adf12713a..02076f3a2883 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig @@ -10,7 +10,6 @@ config RISCV select OF_IRQ select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS - select CLONE_BACKWARDS select COMMON_CLK select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS select GENERIC_CPU_DEVICES -- 2.13.6
