On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:20:22PM -0600, Matt Peterson wrote:
> Your argument for supporting dynamic interfaces is valid, I really like
> the idea of being able to bind to an interface that is not up yet. I can
> definitely see where this would be helpful -- too bad is is not part of
> the spec. What I don't like about it is that it may break existing
> applications. Is the Socket spec so loose that Linux 2.4 can be
> comfortable in its current condition? I hope not.
>
> Since it is possible that this "bug" un-repairably breaks the
> portability of our application (a Java virtual machine) to the new
> kernel, I suspect that there may be other applications that it breaks
> too.
Could you explain how the JVM breaks exactly ?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST