[aarch64-port-dev ] [RFC] [PATCH] replace fork syscall with equivalent clone

[Edward Nevill]

On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 16:17 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 3 October 2013 15:56, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 10/03/2013 01:36 PM, Riku Voipio wrote:
> >> The following patch is against openjdk-7 25b30 / icedtea 2.1.8 as used
> >> in linaro openembedded overlay for building openjdk-7. I see openjdk-8
> >> has taken a more conservative approach by defining the fork system
> >> call number for Aarch64. While this works, I think it would be more
> >> cleaner to use clone system call, since that is guaranteed to be
> >> available on all linux platforms. If you disagree, then we should just
> >> backport the openjdk-8 patch to openjdk-7.
> >
> > I'm trying really hard to figure out why this matters.  BTW, there was
> > no patch attached.
> 
> Less lines of code and less arch specific ifdefs, mainly.
> https://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=openembedded/meta-linaro.git;a=blob_plain;f=meta-aarch64/recipes-core/openjdk/files/icedtea-openjdk-aarch64.patch

Hi Riku,

Thanks for this. Yes I agree that the current sequence of architecture
specific conditions is a bit of a mess and just using SYS_clone is
neater.

However, the tip of OpenJDK8 currently does it this way and it is very
difficult to get patches pushed into the tip of OpenJDK8.

Therefore I have just followed what was done before and defined the fork
nos for aarch64.

We could change the aarch64 branch to just use SYS_clone and then when
it comes time to merge with the OpenJDK8 tip review this and see if they
will accept this. Maybe this piece of code would have already been fixed
by such time.

Do you plan to propose a patch against the OpenJDK7 tip for these
changes. If the changes were accepted in OpenJDK7 then accepting them in
OpenJDK8 would be pretty automatic.

Andrew: Do you want me to make these changes (with a suitable comment)
as an aide memoir when we come to merger with OpenJDK8 tip. Or just
leave as is?

All the best,
Ed.