lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Well, if you expand fields to be 128bit and add your disinherite
> fields at the end, there should be no problems with
> compatibility. I.e. my patches will eat work with those parts of
> headers they do understand - which is right thing to do.
OK I add the foo1 foo2 foo3 back in. I no longer have disinherite I killed
it off. I was talking more along code lines though. I really believe that
for the real long run that you shouldn't tie the structure to close to
elf. Someone could add it to a.out or to some new format. Also I disagree
that you can totaly guarentee that all future formats will totaly
compatible. I think that you should aloow for multiple versions to be
placed in the notes section and then search for the one which you
understand. Our structures really are similiar enough. Also for the
version field I really like encoding the date in there as a version
number. Anyway I'm going to be releashing a new patch later today, I'll
try synchronizing as much as I can. There is no reason we can't at least
work out some of these smaller diferences.

--
Any caps I mention are *derived* from a withdrawn draft posix document.
See http://www.millenniumproductsllc.com/sjp/ for more info.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.067 / U:2.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site