[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110610224738.GB11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 23:47:38 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Why is CONFIG_FHANDLE an option??
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Why not? Software needs to test *anyway*, since it might run on earlier
> kernels. And "does that syscall return -ENOSYS" is self-documenting,
> while "is the version higher than $MAGIC_NUMBER" is *not*. Especially since
> there's such thing as backports.
>
> If you need to check that syscall is there, _check_ _it_. Don't breed
> dependencies on version numbers.
PS: we have BSD_PROCESS_ACCT doing pretty much the same kind of thing.
And SYSVIPC. And POSIX_MQUEUE. And there's nfsservctl(2), also
config-dependent. And eventfd(2), and inotify syscalls, etc.
There is such thing as optional system calls. Always had been. Deal
with that...
--
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