Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:40:28 -0800 | Subject | Re: 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
| |