On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 32bit and 64bit on x86 are tested and working. The rest I have looked
> at closely and I can't find any problems.
So I really don't think this was even worth it. I applied the patch,
but I think that you should just have done the architecture you
tested, and left it to arch maintainers to add it as they will.
That's how we tend to do this, and it works. It also avoids surprises
when people then invariably end up having clashes due to system calls
being added. Even in just the 15 hours since you sent the email, I had
merged more code from ARM, and the patch no longer applied to my tree.
It's trivial to fix up, so that's not the problem, but the problem is
with different people adding system calls resulting in re-numbering.
In other words, it's simply better to strive to have *one* entity in
charge of picking the system call number, rather than do it like this.
Ergo: leave it to architecture maintainers to minimize the issue of
system call renumbering.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
