On 10/08/2010 02:50 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Friday 08 October 2010 18:33:55 David Daney wrote: >> On 10/08/2010 05:06 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >>> On Thursday 07 October 2010 19:49:28 Eric Paris wrote: >>>> The safest thing would probably be to punt the syscalls to 2.6.37. >>>> Which is sad since I know a number of people are already working against >>>> them, but maybe that proves it's the best approach? >>> >>> I agree with removing the syscalls from 2.6.36 because of the following >>> reasons: >> >> How would the mechanics of this be achieved? >> >> Is it enough to just unconditionally return -ENOSYS from the sys_*() >> functions? Or should all the patches be reverted? > > Whatever works I guess ... they would get reactivated pretty soon, anyway. > Returning -ENOSYS should be sufficient (that's what a non-system-call does); it would *also* be good to block any headers from getting exported to userspace so people don't end up with compiling against the wrong version of the kernel headers and then wonder why their code doesn't work in the future. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
