[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       uclibc
Subject:    kernel_types.h really needed ?
From:       u-uclibc-qs50 () aetey ! se (u-uclibc-qs50 at aetey ! se)
Date:       2012-01-25 8:21:07
Message-ID: 20120125082107.GA16423 () example ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:06:21PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > kernel_types.h. but i suspect some people do care about older targets.
> > 
> > For the record, I happen to care. Compiling for Linux 2.4.19.
> 
> considering how quick you responded, i suspect you're not the only one.  so 

:)

For us it is crucial to produce binaries usable for virtually all kinds
of [people and] setups. As some setups have to rely on old kernels' ABI
for one or another special reason, we need to be able to conform.

It an order of magnitude more efficient (in the developer time here) to
use a compatible ABI, compared to maintenance of multiple libraries' and
binaries' versions. So I appreciate that uclibc keeps the compatibility
as long as possible/feasible.

(The vast majority of the applications we care about run just fine
without the newer kernel ABIs' bells and whistles)

> we'll continue to live with bits/kernel_types.h.  i don't think it's that big 
> of a deal since you only implement it once per arch (by basically copying from 
> the kernel where you need to set this up already) and then leave it alone.

Nice.

Regards,
Rune


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]