Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:02:20 -0800 | | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | | Subject | Re: [patch] remove hugetlb syscalls |
| |
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:30:35PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> The main reason I haven't considered doing this is because they already >> got in and there appears to be a user (Oracle/IA64).
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:48:09PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > Not in shipping code. Certainly no vendor kernels that I am aware of > have shipped these syscalls yet either, as nearly all of the developers > find them revolting. Not to mention that the code cleanups and bugfixes > are still ongoing.
This is a bit out of my hands; the support decision came from elsewhere. I have to service my users first, and after that, I don't generally want to stand in the way of others. In general it's good to have minimalistic interfaces, but I'm not a party to the concerns regarding the syscalls. My direct involvement there has been either of a kernel janitor nature, helping to adapt it to Linux kernel idioms, or reusing code for hugetlbfs.
I guess the only real statement left to make is that hugetlbfs (or my participation/implementation of it) was not originally intended to compete with the syscalls, though there's a lot of obvious overlap (which I tried to exploit by means of code reuse).
Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |