Re: [PATCH] linuxabi

[Erik Andersen]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/