On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:55:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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. Which just happened on MIPS; I had a conflict between sendmmsg and sysns. People other than the maintainer adding new syscalls routinely goes wrong for this or other reasons. > 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. Amen. Ralf -- 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
