>>>>> Eugene Crosser writes:
> Can Chris or someone please tell me what is the reason behind leaving
> __kernel_uid_t == short on x86 architecture, and adding
> __kernel_uid32_t? To me, it sounds more reasonable to rather make
> __kernel_uid_t == int and add __kernel_uid16_t == short for binary
> compatibility things.
> As a result of current status of things, 32bit uid support does *not*
> become visible to the userspace when you rebuild glibc with the new
> kernel source. To make it take effect, you also need to modify glibc
> source, and in a rather illogical way.
> Am I missing something?
Even if this would be changed, glibc still needs to properly handle
some of the structs which have been enlarged. And changing the size
of kernel_uid_t might enlarge some structs - this would lead to lots
of incompatibility.
glibc 2.2 will have support for older kernels with 16bit and and newer
ones with 32bit UIDS - without a need to recompile your application.
Andreas
-- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:12 EST