This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Async signal safe TLS accesses
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh at google dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:07:18 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Async signal safe TLS accesses
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1380830518-16721-1-git-send-email-ahh at google dot com> <1382477766-15770-1-git-send-email-ahh at google dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1310222145490 dot 13258 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CALoOobMsO6X86JFD4J7F-EL-J+xOTEOVbzH=6mwrvfCnFvw57Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311052233090 dot 30260 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CALoOobM70-mix+=1zuDnSoK7SRqQChbL=03xBkUcFf1fyS1Mjw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CALoOobP7kdpZCZA0a7MZWCtONu81fW4H_qAWOEfpfvzxJgG_=Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CALoOobP6rTDosadvLKhHY+deDsU-FtvyO8QX_Y4dZy716e2ATQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CALoOobOCT-inwMZkzEr+JYT4c8qwpN-EGMPFu_kHQTpc2icj0g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CALoOobPHo7+jG0nfiZp9afC2rArLUMRYZEag21W+78UBTZF=CQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <orvbzckoif dot fsf at livre dot home> <52981C48 dot 2080609 at redhat dot com> <orppphk8e2 dot fsf at livre dot home> <529D00ED dot 2020301 at redhat dot com> <orsiu9rfx1 dot fsf at livre dot home>
On 12/03/2013 12:40 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2013, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> for now, given that Google has already done the work, and there is no
>> public API discussion, I'm going to leave this discussion until
>> further down the road when we go back to address having a public
>> AS-Safe allocation API that users can use.
>
> I meant the arena-based malloc implementation could be used for the
> internal API, but (as I wrote in my first email in the thread) I meant
> it as a suggestion for future improvement, not as an objection to the
> patch (not page, as I wrote then ;-) under review.
Understood, and I wanted you to know why I wasn't going to respond
to your suggestion until later :-)
>> In that contact I think we'll need to have a discussion
>> about malloc-based vs. something else.
>
> Sounds good to me.
Good.
Cheers,
Carlos.