On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:35:35 +0000 David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 15:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > lutimesat-simplify-utime2.patch > > lutimesat-extend-do_utimes-with-flags.patch > > lutimesat-actual-syscall-and-wire-up-on-i386.patch > > > > Do we want this? Ulrich says so. Will merge, I guess. > > I would strongly recommend that in the general case, you don't merge new > system calls unless the corresponding compat_ system call is > implemented. Good point. > This makes sure that people adding system calls will design the API for > the new system call appropriately, rather than trying to implement > compat support as an afterthought and only then realising that they wish > the original had been done differently. We've seen examples of this > where it would have been _trivial_ to adjust the API slightly to make > compat syscalls a non-issue, but the developer just didn't _think_ about > it until the syscall was set in stone. > > This new system call seems to need compat_ support but lacks it, so I > would suggest you shouldn't merge it just yet. OK, thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
