lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Anyway, that's a separate story - semctl(2) is going to be ugly, no matter
> what we do, but the rest of those guys doesn't have to. How about the
> following (completely untested):

Hmm. Looks like the RightThing(tm) to me.

The thing that stands out that I question the value of that
HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS thing. Is there any reason we don't just make
all architectures use it? What's the downside? I'm not sure I see the
point of the non-wrapper version.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-21 03:21    [W:0.068 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site