[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:36:41PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >>There are more ancient system calls, like old_stat and oldolduname.
> > >>Do we want separate options for each system call that is obsoleted?
> > >>
> > >IMO, no, we do not.
> >
> > how about something like the embedded, experimental, and broken options.
> > that way normal users can disable all of them at a stroke, people who need
> > them can add them in.
> Thats just not an option - you would have zillions of config options.
> Moreover this is a system call, and the system call interface is one of the few
> supposed to be stable. You shouldnt simply assume that "no one will ever use sys_uselib()" -
> there might be programs out there who use it.
> I agree with Andries.

In -tiny, I've added config options for disabling _many_ syscalls (but
not this one). They all go under EMBEDDED. And then I changed the
description of EMBEDDED to imply that changing anything takes you into
nonstandard, unsupported territory.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.073 / U:1.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site