[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)
    On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:36:41PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    > > >>There are more ancient system calls, like old_stat and oldolduname.
    > > >>Do we want separate options for each system call that is obsoleted?
    > > >>
    > > >IMO, no, we do not.
    > >
    > > how about something like the embedded, experimental, and broken options.
    > > that way normal users can disable all of them at a stroke, people who need
    > > them can add them in.
    > Thats just not an option - you would have zillions of config options.
    > Moreover this is a system call, and the system call interface is one of the few
    > supposed to be stable. You shouldnt simply assume that "no one will ever use sys_uselib()" -
    > there might be programs out there who use it.
    > I agree with Andries.

    In -tiny, I've added config options for disabling _many_ syscalls (but
    not this one). They all go under EMBEDDED. And then I changed the
    description of EMBEDDED to imply that changing anything takes you into
    nonstandard, unsupported territory.

    Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.021 / U:62.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site