Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:19:27 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |