On Monday, September 16, 2013, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 09:24 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 21:24 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> There are cases where we have bsps with 2.6.3x kernels and libc >> >> compiled against 3.10 assumes syscalls >> > >> > That is a bug in glibc. It should not be doing that unless configured >> > --enable-kernel=3.10.x (and this is the whole point of the >> > --enable-kernel option). If it's assuming 3.10.x syscalls under >> > --enable-kernel=2.6.x then it is broken and should be fixed. >> > >> >> we have OLDEST_KERNEL = "2.6.16" and thats not a problem. However one >> case where it showed up was when building udev > 164 with kernels >> where accept4 call was not wired for arm e.g. since udev looked up >> definition of SOCK_CLOEXEC which it found but that 2.6.32 kernel >> really did not support it. > > That sounds slightly different to the problem you were originally > describing ("libc compiled against 3.10") but I think the answer is > basically still the same: it is a bug in udev, and udev ought to be > fixed. >
if you check for kernel version yes but its not wrong by testing a given kernel API which it is doing anyway i think the notice that rp added is good in general and may be will help folks to upgrade and unify kernels in long run > p. > > >
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
