On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:44 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 12-03-22 11:12 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: > > > > Op 22 mrt. 2012, om 15:49 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > >> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 13:22 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: > >>> In my never ending quest to get consolekit/polkit/etc working properly > >>> I've found that CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL is really usefull (it's usefull in > >>> other contexts as well, but that's outside the oe-core set of > >>> recipes). It has the following problem: > >>> > >>> config AUDITSYSCALL > >>> bool "Enable system-call auditing support" > >>> depends on AUDIT&& (X86 || PPC || S390 || IA64 || UML || > >>> SPARC64 || SUPERH) > >>> > >>> No MIPS or ARM support. There recently was a pull request from Al Viro > >>> to get at least ARM support into mainline, but I'm not sure what > >>> happened to that. Anyway, I backported the ARM patch to 3.0 and 3.2, > >>> but to make it usefull I'd need to patch linux-libc-headers and bump > >>> PR on virtual/libc. > >>> > >>> What's the OE-core position on backporting syscalls to > >>> linux-libc-headers? > >> > >> Why can't we just increase the linux-libc-headers version? > > Sorry for the slow reply, I missed the original and was wrapped > up in some debugging. > > > > > In this case that would be perfectly fine. And bump PR in virtual/libc of > > course :) > > I was just about to do this. Just a day or so ago, I noticed that > the version had lagged (again) and needed to be bumped. I'm all > for this as well, as long as there's a graceful fallback of ENOSYS > there's no real harm to older kernels. > > Richard: an to you on this one .. is it too late to do this for > the various stabilization points ?
I'm a bit jittery on this. If I have the patch today and it doesn't break anything it might make it in... > >> Presumably > >> someone running a kernel without the patches won't see any issue, the > >> syscall just won't be present and software will fall back? > > > > Exactly > > +1 (I read this after typing my response). > > > > >> I think the big concern would be deviating from mainline as its not so > >> much a backport as a divergence at this point (and this is why we can't > >> just upgrade)? > > > > Speaking of divergence, what is the point of having > > linux-libc-headers-yocto_git.bb ? > > Very little. It was originally used to export exactly the headers > as were present in the yocto kernel tree, but Richard and I since > agreed that tgz based libc-headers where faster and good enough. > > We can move it to the yocto layers for use by anyone that really needs > this 1:1 mapping of kernel tree to headers in the system. > > And a second: .. is it too late to do this for stabilization points ? No, I'll take that one since its a removal on something that is unused. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
