Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 16 Apr 2023 07:33:09 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools/nolibc: fork: fix on s390 and add test
Message-ID: <ZDuIlQ4mR9Ic116I@1wt.eu>
References: <20230415-nolibc-fork-v1-0-9747c73651c5@weissschuh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230415-nolibc-fork-v1-0-9747c73651c5@weissschuh.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Thomas,

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:28:46PM +0200, Thomas Wei?schuh wrote:
> The generic fork() implementation in nolibc falls back to the clone()
> syscall. On s390 the first two arguments to clone() are swapped compared
> to other architectures, breaking the implementation in nolibc.
> 
> Add a custom implementation of fork() to s390 that works.
> 
> While at it also add a testcase for fork().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Wei?schuh <linux@weissschuh.net>

Thanks for these. Please always Cc the authors of code you're fixing
(e.g. there could be more subtle details that only the author knows
about). Here I think it's OK, but I've CCed Sven and will add him to
your fix.

Thank you!
Willy