On 13/11/12 12:01, Jonas Bonn wrote: > On 13 November 2012 12:41, James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Hi Jonas, Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list. The points that I've considered for defaulting to old syscalls: * doesn't change existing behaviour of other architectures, so is simply less risk of breaking them. * could possibly make uClibc slightly smaller if it doesn't have to add extra arguments. against: * if defaulted to new syscalls, could give customers a chance to rebuild their libc so that when deprecated syscalls are removed they don't notice. Cheers James -- 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
