On 07/01/2011 07:23 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 06:48 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Phil Blundell<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 22:38 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
++#ifdef __UCLIBC__
++/* uclibc does not implement mkostemp GNU extention */
++#define mkostemp(x,y) mkstemp(x)
++#endif
Is that safe? It would be nice to have some commentary in the patch
explaining why the flags are not required for systemd to operate
correctly. If it genuinely doesn't need to be using mkostemp() then
perhaps this change should just be made upstream for all libcs.
right
I have to test it eglibc systems
I'm not sure that's quite the point. What I was trying to say before
was that, if systemd is going to the trouble of using mkostemp() rather
than mkstemp() in the first place, one would normally assume that it is
expecting that extra argument to be respected. So it seems like there
are two possibilities:
a) the standardised semantics of mkstemp() are actually sufficient for
systemd's requirements and there was no need for it to be using
mkostemp() at all. In this case it should just be patched (ideally
upstream) to use mkstemp() unconditionally.
yes I was using a mobile device did not type too much but this is the
case I am inclined to test.
b) the specific semantics of uClibc's mkstemp() implementation are
sufficient for systemd's needs, although the semantics guaranteed by the
standards are not. In this case your patch might be appropriate but
there should be a comment explaining why it is safe and what exactly the
uClibc behaviour is that it depends on. This would still not be an
ideal state of affairs since uClibc might change in the future, but it's
probably acceptable; a better solution might be either to add mkostemp()
into uClibc explicitly, or to patch systemd to obtain the semantics that
it needs by some other route.
no if the flags are needed then uclibc's mkstemp wont work. We have to
provide an implementation of mkostemp or alter the code in systemd so
it uses something else. But this is second choice. Since uclibc does not
like the extentions to be implemented.
I'm not familiar enough with either systemd or uClibc to know which of
the above is true here. Can you clarify?
p.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
