On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:11:23AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> IIUC SOCK_CLOEXEC only works in 2.6.27 or higher with accept4? >> >> In which case, since accept4 has never existed before, it's OK to >> change this value? >> > > Well, it's never worked either, so I assume it's safe to change. The > main problem is glibc keeping a parallel copy of the system headers > instead of using the sanitized ones, since this means anything which > correctly used those headers has the right value. Applied to libc-ports. Thanks. Yes, I agree completely. They are here for hysterical raisins, and eventually I think glibc will shed them with time. > (Basically... any userspace program compiled against the old glibc will > need to be rebuilt, but if we change it won't be any more broken than > they already have been.) Good, that's what I like to hear :-) Cheers, Carlos. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
