Re: Why is CONFIG_FHANDLE an option??

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:14:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > I just configured a new kernel based on a recent git checkout and when I 
> > had copied in my old configuration and did a "make oldconfig"I was greeted 
> > with
> > 
> >     open by fhandle syscalls (FHANDLE) [N/y/?] (NEW)
> > 
> > Ok, so I read the help text description and learn that it's about two new 
> > syscalls - open_by_handle_at(2) and name_to_handle_at(2).
> > 
> > My first thought at this point was "why are new syscalls even an option"?
> > 
> > Syscalls are in my oppinion ABI - having optional syscalls is just about 
> > as bad as removing a syscall. It basically means that users cannot know if 
> > the syscall is there and will need to test (it's bad enough having to 
> > check the kernel version, having to check for specific syscalls as well 
> > is just, well, annoying at best). 
> > 
> > Why are we making these optional?
> 
> Why not?

To avoid situations like "I need to use a program but suddenly
it requires system call which I compiled out a month before and now
I need to reboot like an idiot".

splice(2) wasn't given config option despite several times bigger .o
file compared to fshandle+exportfs.

So let's say it was always somewhat arbitrary decision.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/