On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >Maybe what we can do is using PLPA's functions if __GLIBC__ is <=
> >2 and __GLIBC_MINOR__ is < the first version which is known to be
> >correct or if CPU_SET can't be compiled, and rely on the glibc
> >functions else. Of course we have to rely on glibc in any case for
> >pthread_setaffinity_np().
>
> That sounds good. Even after glibc was fixed, "bad" versions of it
> were still in many already-installed machines for many years
And these had a minor number earlier than the fixed glibc, right?
Yes -- that's why I'm saying your plan sounds good. :-)
The *only* weird possibility would be if RH (or Suse) patched their
old glibcs to fix this problem but didn't update the minor number.
Things like this have happened before; it's why I always prefer
testing for behavior rather than version numbers.
But I don't quite know how to probe for this in the running glibc --
you *may or may not* encounter a problem if you have a size mismatch.
Version number might be the best that we can do here. :-\
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
