lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>
> >> iirc there was some discussion about this and it was explicitly decided to
> >> keep the CLONE flags.
> >>
> >> Maybe Janak or Linus can comment?
> >
> > My personal opinion is that having a different set of flags is more
> > confusing and likely to result in problems later than having the same
> > ones. Regardless, I'm not touching this for 2.6.16 any more,
>
> I am actually a lot more concerned with the fact that we don't test
> for invalid bits. So we have an ABI that will change in the future,
> and that doesn't allow us to have a program that runs on old and new
> kernels.

The risk of breaking things is small - it would require someone to write a
sys_unshare-using app which a) they care about and b) has a particular bug
in it. But yes, we should check.

> I guess I can resend some version of my patch after 2.6.16 is out and
> break the ABI for the undefined bits then. Correct programs shouldn't
> care. But it sure would be nice if they could care.
>

Your single patch did two different things - there's a lesson here ;)
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-16 23:19    [W:0.060 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site