Re: [PATCH 2/4] Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre
<steve.mcintyre@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 28 November 2012 20:58, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@systemhalted.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:04:34PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>Use the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 ldconfig cache tag for AArch64,
>>>similarly to the way tags are handled for other architectures.
>>>
>>>========================================================
>>>
>>>Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache
>>>
>>>      * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/dl-cache.h: New file.
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: Steve McIntyre <steve.mcintyre@linaro.org>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell  <carlos@systemhalted.org>
>>
>> This looks good to me.
>>
>> Markus, as the AArch64 maintainer, should have the final word and
>> check it in.
>>
>> Feel free to include my Reviewed-by: in the git commit logs to track
>> reviews.
>
> Hmmm, problem: this adds checking for the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 at
> runtime in ld.so, but nobody has (yet!) committed the code that will
> add that flag from ldconfig (in patch #3 in my set). That's partly my
> fault for not stating a direct dependency, I guess, but we'll need to
> fix that ASAP. Would you prefer to revert *this* patch or take that
> one too?

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the dependency.

Please work on getting this fixed ASAP.

We want AArch64 into 2.17.

> Related to Joseph's comment about #1 in the set (tagging binaries
> based on interpreter names): splitting up ARM and AArch64 patches. I
> can easily split #1 that way if preferred, but to my mind it makes no
> sense to split #3 as it's a lump of common code that will run on both
> ARM and AArch64. What do people think about that, please?

Split them up please.

Push them out again for review, and CC me and Joseph.

Cheers,
Carlos.