Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf test workload noploop: Name the noploop process

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 11:05:41AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:45 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 08:12:47AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:36 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid it'd introduce a build failure on musl.  Please see
> >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250611092542.F4ooE2FL@linutronix.de/
> >
> > > > I think <sys/prctl.h> would be enough.
> >
> > > we could do that but in the glibc man page it says:
> > > https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/prctl.2.html
> > > ```
> > > #include <linux/prctl.h>  /* Definition of PR_* constants */
> > > #include <sys/prctl.h>
> > > ```
> >
> > > It'd be nice to think musl was slowly getting fixed. I notice we're
> >
> > Sebastian reported on the musl libc, its maintainer replied:
> >
> > https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2025/06/12/11
> 
> Ugh. I'm not sure how we're expected to resolve this and have glibc
> and musl be happy without basically not trusting libc.

Maybe pthread_setname_np()?  It seems musl also implemented it.

Thanks,
Namhyung