On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Zhixiong Chi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2017年08月14日 00:35, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Richard Purdie >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:16 +0800, Zhixiong Chi wrote: >>>> >>>> The patch in this Bugzilla entry was requested by a customer: >>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4578 >>>> https://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19282 >>> >>> I'm a little nervous about accepting a patch which has been sitting in >>> the glibc bugzilla for around 10 years. Any idea why upstream haven't >>> taken this? >>> >> patches look sane to me. I would like to see if we can reproduce the >> issue on x86 using the >> testcases from bugzilla > > > I don't know why the upstream don't take care of it. I guess the reason > may be that the testcases is out of scope and we usually don't use the > unasync-signal-safe function after the forking. > > Yes, the testcases from bugzilla can be reproduced easily on every > qemu bsp. At the same time we have done the glibc regression testing, > The patches works well.
Please test it on hardware as well. I think the patch is safe. I will bring this up in glibc community. > > Thanks. > >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Richard >>> -- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > -- > --------------------- > Thanks, > Zhixiong Chi > Tel: +86-10-8477-7036 > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
