Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:10:46 +0300 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: Why is CONFIG_FHANDLE an option?? |
| |
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:14:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > I just configured a new kernel based on a recent git checkout and when I > > had copied in my old configuration and did a "make oldconfig"I was greeted > > with > > > > open by fhandle syscalls (FHANDLE) [N/y/?] (NEW) > > > > Ok, so I read the help text description and learn that it's about two new > > syscalls - open_by_handle_at(2) and name_to_handle_at(2). > > > > My first thought at this point was "why are new syscalls even an option"? > > > > Syscalls are in my oppinion ABI - having optional syscalls is just about > > as bad as removing a syscall. It basically means that users cannot know if > > the syscall is there and will need to test (it's bad enough having to > > check the kernel version, having to check for specific syscalls as well > > is just, well, annoying at best). > > > > Why are we making these optional? > > Why not?
To avoid situations like "I need to use a program but suddenly it requires system call which I compiled out a month before and now I need to reboot like an idiot".
splice(2) wasn't given config option despite several times bigger .o file compared to fshandle+exportfs.
So let's say it was always somewhat arbitrary decision.
| |