Re: [PATCH] linuxabi

[Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 08:39:50AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> This is a 2.7 project.

I disagree. This is unrelated to kernel development, just like working
on sparse is unrelated to kernel development. 

> Doing this right requires a lot more
> than what you are doing here.

Possibly. So we need discussion.

I have registered comment #1: Al prefers the enum style.
A possibility.

Now you come with comment #2: write LINUX_MS_RDONLY instead of
MS_RDONLY. You have not convinced me.

> One example is that we need to be very careful with is that the
> glibc abi is not the same as the linux kernel abi.  Even though most
> of the functions are pass through some are not.  And which are which
> is a fairly arbitrary decision.  So all of the definitions exported
> through linuxabi need to be in a linux centric namespace.  This is
> especially true because otherwise I could not include
> linuxabi/mountflags.h and sys/mount.h and not get compilation 
> conflicts.

Today glibc tells me in sys/mount.h
 #define MS_RMT_MASK (MS_RDONLY | MS_MANDLOCK)
and in linux/fs.h
 #define MS_RMT_MASK (MS_RDONLY|MS_NOSUID|MS_NODEV|MS_NOEXEC|MS_SYNCHRONOUS|MS_MANDLOCK|MS_NOATIME|MS_NODIRATIME)

It seems glibc is not even self-consistent.
Consider linuxabi/mountflags.h as part of the replacement for linux/fs.h.

Andries