Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:58:22 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
        oleg@redhat.com, alistair23@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org, fweimer@redhat.com,
        palmer@sifive.com, macro@wdc.com, zongbox@gmail.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] waitid: process group enhancement
Message-ID: <20190814155822.GI9017@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <CAKmqyKMJPQAOKn11xepzAwXOd4e9dU0Cyz=A0T-uMEgUp5yJjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190814154400.6371-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190814154400.6371-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 05:43:59PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
> This patch adds support for waiting on the current process group by
> specifying waitid(P_PGID, 0, ...) as discussed in [1]. The details why
> we need to do this are in the commit message of [PATCH 1/1] so I won't
> repeat them here.
> 
> I've picked this up since the thread has gone stale and parts of
> userspace are actually blocked by this.
> 
> Note that the patch has been changed to be more closely aligned with the
> P_PIDFD changes to waitid() I have sitting in my for-next branch (cf. [2]).
> This makes the merge conflict a little simpler and picks up on the
> coding style discussions that guided the P_PIDFD patchset.
> 
> There was some desire to get this feature in with 5.3 (cf. [3]).
> But given that this is a new feature for waitid() and for the sake of
> avoiding any merge conflicts I would prefer to land this in the 5.4
> merge window together with the P_PIDFD changes.

That makes 5.4 (or later, depending on other stuff) the hard minimum
for RV32 ABI. Is that acceptable? I was under the impression (perhaps
mistaken) that 5.3 was going to be next LTS series which is why I'd
like to have the necessary syscalls for a complete working RV32
userspace in it. If I'm wrong about that please ignore me. :-)

Rich