![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: >Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > >>Right now "flags" doesn't do anything at all, and you should just pass in >>zero. >> > >In that case perhaps we should be enforcing flags==0 so that future >flags-using applications will reliably fail on old flags-not-understanding >kernels. > >But that won't work if we later define a bit in flags to mean "behave like >old kernels used to". So perhaps we should require that bits 0-15 of >`flags' be zero and not care about bits 16-31. > >IOW: it might be best to make `flags' just go away, and add new syscalls in >the future as appropriate. > Well it is always going to transfer data from infd to outfd, isn't it? If something comes up that does not do that, then that should be a new syscall rather than a new flag. flags just modify the manner of the transfer I think. Things should still work if some flag is not supported, perhaps just not with optimal performance. That said, unsupported flags probably should fail, shouldn't they? The application / library could then retry with flags = 0. -- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-03-30 09:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||