Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] uapi glibc compat: fix musl libc compatibility

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2017-04-20 at 16:07 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> 
> I think I have to put the brakes on this patch series, after much
> consideration.
> 
> It does not scale if we continually add a hodge-podge of different
> ifdef tests to the UAPI headers in order to prevent mutliple
> definitions.
> 
> We will add that IFF_ECHO ifdef for MUSL libc today, and for another
> libc we will add another such hack. And so on and so forth...
> 
> Instead, LIBC implementation must adopt the ifdef protections which
> have standard names and are being adopted by GLIBC and hopefully
> others.

I agree, except I don't think you're going far enough. Those "standard
names" you mention... some of this stuff actually depends on __GLIBC__,
and *that* isn't right either.

I tried to kill that off completely and make the kernel entirely
agnostic, inÂhttps://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=148898383805658&w=2

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature