[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100110044954.GB19799@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 04:49:54 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
dhowells@...hat.com, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
tony.luck@...el.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
gerg@...inux.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, jdike@...toit.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] generic sys_old_select
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 02:22:41PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > If we do that let's do it consistantly for various old syscalls, not
> > an odd one out.
>
> Yes, and it would be a good idea to do so, rather than hiding all these
> compatibility calls in all kind of random places.
>
> There is, however, a reason *not* to do it which should be carefully
> considered: by co-locating the compatibility version with the modern
> version, it gets access to static functions that are part of the
> implementation of the modern version. If we move the compatibility
> versions out, it may entail having to export those statics.
So we don't move such ones... I agree that it's a separate patch
queue, BTW.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists