* Amir Goldstein: >> If it's too much effort to synchronise them between glibc then it's >> better to just close the book on this whole chapter (even though my >> impression is that glibc made a mistake or two when adding the >> definitions). > > Considering that glibc has this fix lined up: > https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/lhubjnpv03o.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Do we need to do anything at all? > > Florian, > > I am not that familiar with packaging and distributions of glibc > headers and kernel headers to downstream users. I don't think kernel changes are necessary or desirable at this point. The glibc change went into glibc 2.42 only, and at this point in time, all distributions shipping 2.42 (few of them do) are pretty much guaranteed to pick up fixes from the 2.42 stable release branch regularly. So if we get this into glibc 2.43 and backport it to 2.42, the problem should disappear quite soon from a developer's perspective. Thanks, Florian
