Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:31:15 -0600 | From | Erik Andersen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] linuxabi |
| |
On Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 10:37:03PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > > My point is that we need to cleanly handle the fact that glibc > > defines it's own abi that is not equivalent to the kernel abi. > > A linux specific namespace does that. After libc is done with > > the definitions users will still use MS_RDONLY. > > Does anything other than glibc have this problem? (Does uclibc have this > problem? cdrecord?)
glibc presents the glibc ABI to its client applications, and uclibc presents the uclibc ABI to its clients. If they choose to process things a bit before communicating with their clients that is their business. But that is certainly not a problem for the kernel developer's to worry about.
The means by which the various C libs present their own ABI to their clients is also their private business. If the kernel developers can provide a clean ABI to user space that is not mingled with kernel internals, you can be sure the various C lib developers will be overjoyed to use that for kernel communication and will gladly address any needed ABI translation.
-Erik
-- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |