linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 14/31] ARC: syscall support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACM3HyFE-S2NM75qVS2Fhhm8YoP1jH4mS41aZ5B1gW2wo-Q99g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:01:35 +0100
From:	Jonas Bonn <jonas.bonn@...il.com>
To:	James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 14/31] ARC: syscall support

On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com> wrote:
> The uClibc patches I mentioned have been posted, see here:
>
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/2012-November/047110.html
>
> Please do try them out and provide any feedback.
>

Hi James,

Many thanks for picking this up...

This is the third time around for trying to get this into uClibc as
Mark Salter also pushed a patch set which got about as much feedback
(almost none) on the list as mine did.  His patchset, like yours,
preferred the "old" syscalls when present.

...and that gets me around to the question:  why should the "old"
syscalls be preferred?  I'm specifically asking this here because I'm
curious what the kernel developers' take on this is.

Regards,
Jonas
--
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/