This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] sched_getaffinity() fails with -EINVAL

From: Sharyathi Nagesh <sharyath at in dot ibm dot com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:13:56 +0530
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_getaffinity() fails with -EINVAL
References: <4B7D30C6.8060702@in.ibm.com> <4B7D8565.6010603@redhat.com> <20100219113708.B94D.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

Kosaki
  Thanks for forwarding the mail
>> 
>> You don't understand the concept of binary compatibility, do you? 
>> You cannot change the size of a type.
I was concerned about applications breaking due to change
in kernel configuration, which application developer may not be aware
off. If you feel changing those sys_*affinity() interfaces in
application is more manageable than suggested changes let it be that way
> 
> Yes, Both type size change and syscall failure are binary 
> incompatibility. Sharyathi,  Why can't we change kernel's painful 
> argument assumption?
Kosaki I am not completely convinced how we can suggest changes to
kernel code. Meanwhile changing the interfaces to  *_S macros looks more
appropriate
Regards
Yeehaw

References:
- [PATCH] sched_getaffinity() fails with -EINVAL
  - From: Sharyathi Nagesh
- Re: [PATCH] sched_getaffinity() fails with -EINVAL
  - From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: [PATCH] sched_getaffinity() fails with -EINVAL
  - From: KOSAKI Motohiro

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]