Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:23:45 -0500 | From | Doug Ledford <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing |
| |
David Lang wrote:
> so this just means that an eye needs to be kept on the non-dynamic > syscalls and up the starting point for dynamic syscalls significantly > before we run out of space for the non-dynamic ones. > > running software that depends on features in a new kernel on a > significantly older kernel is always questionable, if you software really > needs to do that you need to watch for a bunch of things.
No. This is different. Calling a syscall and expecting to get either A) the syscall you intended or B) -ENOSYS is an accepted, safe practice under Unix/Linux. This breaks that practice.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/dledford Please check my web site for aic7xxx updates/answers before e-mailing me about problems
- 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/
| |