> syscall bindings. My example was about code using the predefined syscall
> number for new functions on an older kernel where those functions don't
> exist, but where they overlap with the older dynamic syscall numbers. In
> short, the patch is safe for code that uses the lazy binding, but it can
> still overlap with future syscall numbers and code that doesn't use the lazy
> binding but instead uses predefined numbers.
Now I follow you. So if Linus takes that patch he needs to allocate a block
of per architecture dynamic syscall number space for it to use. Negative
syscall numbers seem the most promising approach ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 31 2001 - 21:00:09 EST