Subject: [RFC] RISC-V: Don't set CLONE_BACKWARDS
Date: Mon,  8 Jan 2018 17:27:56 -0800
Message-Id: <20180109012756.2401-1-palmer@sifive.com>
Cc: patches@groups.riscv.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

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 <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
---
 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