[Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] missing: remove unneccessary comment

[Jacob Keller]

Since missing.h includes more than just the missing glibc functions, we no
longer need this comment, as the missing.h file won't go away.

Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller <***@intel.com>
---
missing.h | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/missing.h b/missing.h
index 99a8d83..d1bf01a 100644
--- a/missing.h
+++ b/missing.h
@@ -17,9 +17,6 @@
* 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
*/

-/*
- * When glibc offers the syscall, this will go away.
- */
#ifndef HAVE_MISSING_H
#define HAVE_MISSING_H

[Richard Cochran]

Post by Jacob Keller
Since missing.h includes more than just the missing glibc functions, we no
longer need this comment, as the missing.h file won't go away.

Well, it *will* go away one day (in a few years), once the C libraries
have all of the contents, functions, macros, and all.

Post by Jacob Keller
-/*
- * When glibc offers the syscall, this will go away.
- */

Would it make you feel better if it read, "offers all of this"?

Thans,
Richard

[Keller, Jacob E]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:43 AM
To: Keller, Jacob E
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] missing: remove unneccessary
comment

Post by Jacob Keller
Since missing.h includes more than just the missing glibc functions, we

no

Post by Jacob Keller
longer need this comment, as the missing.h file won't go away.

Well, it *will* go away one day (in a few years), once the C libraries
have all of the contents, functions, macros, and all.

Post by Jacob Keller
-/*
- * When glibc offers the syscall, this will go away.
- */

Would it make you feel better if it read, "offers all of this"?
Thans,
Richard

Wouldn't that mean that we would be dropping support for older C libraries though? I would assume since we currently support versions of glibc, that we would always need missing.. Unless you plan on dropping support for old versions? That would probably be fine but I didn't think that was the case.

Thanks,
Jake

[Richard Cochran]

Post by Keller, Jacob E
Wouldn't that mean that we would be dropping support for older C libraries though? I would assume since we currently support versions of glibc, that we would always need missing.. Unless you plan on dropping support for old versions? That would probably be fine but I didn't think that was the case.

I only mean that one day, hopefully, there will be a glibc that has
everthing we need, including kernel headers. A few years later, we can
make a release with a new "mininum system requirement" of that glibc
version.

Thanks,
Richard

[Keller, Jacob E]

Post by Richard Cochran

Post by Keller, Jacob E
Wouldn't that mean that we would be dropping support for older C libraries though? I would assume since we currently support versions of glibc, that we would always need missing.. Unless you plan on dropping support for old versions? That would probably be fine but I didn't think that was the case.

I only mean that one day, hopefully, there will be a glibc that has
everthing we need, including kernel headers. A few years later, we can
make a release with a new "mininum system requirement" of that glibc
version.
Thanks,
Richard

Oh, I see :) Alright. I don't mind the comment particularly. This makes
sense. We could re-phrase