Re: PATCH: Support __NR_ugetrlimit for 2.2 kernel (Re: Does e2fsprogs-1.26 work on mips?)

[H . J . Lu]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 03:01:30PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:45:11AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:11:17AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:00:05AM -0800, Peter Hartley wrote:
> > > > H J Lu wrote:
> > > > > What are you talking about? It doesn't matter which kernel header
> > > > > is used. glibc doesn't even use /usr/include/asm/resource.h nor
> > > > > should any user space applications.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not about /usr/include/asm/resource.h, it's about
> > > > /usr/include/asm/unistd.h, where the syscall numbers are defined.
> > > > 
> > > > This is presumably what the "#ifdef __NR_ugetrlimit" in
> > > > sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/i386/getrlimit.c is meant to be testing against --
> > > > nothing in the glibc-2.2.5 distribution itself defines that symbol. Surely a
> > > > Linux glibc doesn't compile without the target system's linux/* and asm/*
> > > > headers?
> > > > 
> > > > 2.4's /usr/include/asm/unistd.h defines __NR_ugetrlimit but 2.2's doesn't.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I see. I think glibc should either require 2.4 header files under
> > > <asm/*.h> and <linux/*.h>, or define __NR_ugetrlimit if it is not
> > > defined.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > How about this patch?
> 
> 
> Just require 2.4 kernel headers if you want to work under a 2.4 kernel. 
> It may not have been documented/enforced, but I believe this was
> already true.

To take the advantage of 2.4, it should be yes. But to run correctly
under 2.4, the answer should no. On the other hand, I agree it is more
a kernel problem than a glibc problem since the older glibc binaries
won't work correctly under 2.4.

H.J.