Re: [patch] complain about unknown CLONE_* flags

From: Pavel Machek (
Date: Fri Nov 02 2001 - 00:55:43 EST


> > Ingo, how do you handle this sort of backward compatibility in your
> > latest pthreads library, or don't you do backward compatibility?
> [btw., it's not me doing it but Ulrich Drepper. I'm mostly doing the 'lets
> find out how the kernel could help' side of things.]
> the proper way of doing this is a way of getting fundamental kernel
> capabilities, not the 'probing' of the kernel in various ways. Glibc
> starts looking like old ISA drivers trying to do nonintrusive
> autodetection: 'lets try this port carefully without disturbing state,
> perhaps this feature is there'.
> one way to handle this cleanly would be to add a kernel capabilities
> bitmask to sysconf(), and backport this to all mainstream Linux kernels

I'm afraid that bitmask will get out-of-date. Doing EINVAL seems like a good
way to do this. [Hmm, perhaps we need CLONE_DONT which only checks capabilities
and returns? It still seems better than sysconf...]

Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt,
details at

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to More majordomo info at Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 23 2002 - 22:00:28 EST