Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing

• Next message: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ..."
• Previous message: John Alvord: "Re: Maybe I have a bad day or something"
• In reply to: David Lang: "Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing"
• Next in thread: Riley Williams: "Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

David Lang wrote:

> so this just means that an eye needs to be kept on the non-dynamic
> syscalls and up the starting point for dynamic syscalls significantly
> before we run out of space for the non-dynamic ones.
>
> running software that depends on features in a new kernel on a
> significantly older kernel is always questionable, if you software really
> needs to do that you need to watch for a bunch of things.

No. This is different. Calling a syscall and expecting to get either A)
the syscall you intended or B) -ENOSYS is an accepted, safe practice under
Unix/Linux. This breaks that practice.

-- 
  Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>  http://people.redhat.com/dledford
       Please check my web site for aic7xxx updates/answers before
                       e-mailing me about problems
-
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/

• Next message: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ..."
• Previous message: John Alvord: "Re: Maybe I have a bad day or something"
• In reply to: David Lang: "Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing"
• Next in thread: Riley Williams: "Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 31 2001 - 21:00:09 EST