On 03/02/2010 06:12 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
You imply lockstep updates because both are on the same source tree? I don't see why that would be required, there is an ABI contract to be respected no matter where the sources for the signatories live.
It's not about ABIs, it's about not being able to rely exclusively on new syscalls or flags (one for all: SOCK_NONBLOCK) because people can run new glibc on old kernels.
If libc had this luxury, it would possibly make a lot more sense to have it in the kernel tree. But it doesn't.
Also, setting up a testing environment for glibc is not trivial, and the intersection of people that care about developing the kernel _and_ glibc is probably too small and opinionated to make this easier.
I could've done both the kernel and userspace bits in the same patch.
You could add a glibc submodule to your git tree, and ask on the git list for help adding some kind of multi-destination support to git-{format-patch,send-email}.
Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
