From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261909AbTJDGbX (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:31:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261914AbTJDGbX (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:31:23 -0400 Received: from codepoet.org ([166.70.99.138]:39602 "EHLO mail.codepoet.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261909AbTJDGbV (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Oct 2003 02:31:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:31:15 -0600 From: Erik Andersen To: Rob Landley Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Andries Brouwer , Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] linuxabi Message-ID: <20031004063114.GA18876@codepoet.org> Reply-To: andersen@codepoet.org Mail-Followup-To: Erik Andersen , Rob Landley , "Eric W. Biederman" , Andries Brouwer , Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20031002153301.GA2033@win.tue.nl> <200310032237.03431.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200310032237.03431.rob@landley.net> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.19-rmk7, Rebel-NetWinder(Intel StrongARM 110 rev 3), 185.95 BogoMips X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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--