From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:04:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] Add key management syscalls to non-i386 Message-Id: <20041020160450.0914270b.davem@davemloft.net> List-Id: References: <3506.1098283455@redhat.com> <20041020150149.7be06d6d.davem@davemloft.net> <20041020225625.GD995@wotan.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20041020225625.GD995@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andi Kleen Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@m17n.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-390@vm.marist.edu, linux-mips@linux-mips.org On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:56:25 +0200 Andi Kleen wrote: > I don't think that's a good idea. Normally new system calls > are relatively obscure and the system works fine without them, > so urgent action is not needed. > > And I think we can trust architecture maintainers to regularly > sync the system calls with i386. I disagree quite strongly. One major frustration for users of non-x86 platforms is that functionality is often missing for some time that we can make trivial to keep in sync. I religiously watch what goes into Linus's tree for this purpose, but that is kind of a rediculious burdon to expect every platform maintainer to do. It's not just system calls, we have signal handling bug fixes, trap handling infrastructure, and now the nice generic IRQ handling subsystem as other examples. Simply put, if you're not watching the tree in painstaking detail every day, you miss all of these enhancements. The knowledge should come from the person putting the changes into the tree, therefore it gets done once and this makes it so that the other platform maintainers will find out about it automatically next time they update their tree. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:11:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from adsl-63-197-226-105.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([IPv6:::ffff:63.197.226.105]:18848 "EHLO cheetah.davemloft.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:11:06 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=cheetah.davemloft.net ident=davem) by cheetah.davemloft.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKPVi-0001j9-00; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:04:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:04:50 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: Andi Kleen Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@m17n.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-390@vm.marist.edu, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] Add key management syscalls to non-i386 archs Message-Id: <20041020160450.0914270b.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20041020225625.GD995@wotan.suse.de> References: <3506.1098283455@redhat.com> <20041020150149.7be06d6d.davem@davemloft.net> <20041020225625.GD995@wotan.suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 6142 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: davem@davemloft.net Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:56:25 +0200 Andi Kleen wrote: > I don't think that's a good idea. Normally new system calls > are relatively obscure and the system works fine without them, > so urgent action is not needed. > > And I think we can trust architecture maintainers to regularly > sync the system calls with i386. I disagree quite strongly. One major frustration for users of non-x86 platforms is that functionality is often missing for some time that we can make trivial to keep in sync. I religiously watch what goes into Linus's tree for this purpose, but that is kind of a rediculious burdon to expect every platform maintainer to do. It's not just system calls, we have signal handling bug fixes, trap handling infrastructure, and now the nice generic IRQ handling subsystem as other examples. Simply put, if you're not watching the tree in painstaking detail every day, you miss all of these enhancements. The knowledge should come from the person putting the changes into the tree, therefore it gets done once and this makes it so that the other platform maintainers will find out about it automatically next time they update their tree.