[lkml]   [1997]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Killing clones
Date (H. Peter Anvin) writes:

> Followup to: <199708150756.DAA18440@dcl.MIT.EDU>
> By author: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
> > In general this brings up the question of whether we want to enforce a
> > requirement that people upgrade to glibc when we move forward to the 2.2
> > kernel.....
> >
> My opinion is: 2.2, probably not (unless it is *way* late); 2.4
> probably, as by then we're really going to need things that break
> backward compatibility due to silly limits.

2.2 will have to support libc5 anyway for binary compatibility, but
I think it's OK to say "If you want to use new 2.2 features use glibc".
It was the same way with libc5/2.0 - with libc4 it was impossible to
use many 2.0.x features.

One problem is the definition of "new 2.2 features" though: e.g. if
I need to recompile bash to kill processes with pid >2^16 (I think
kill() already uses 32bit pid_ts but you get the idea) that's a different
issue. I think it should be tried to keep the functionality that's already
in 2.0 backward compatible to libc5. For the pid/tid issue that's not
easy though.


 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.065 / U:31.412 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site