From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758526AbYEMEjm (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 00:39:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753912AbYEMEjb (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 00:39:31 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:55618 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753655AbYEMEja (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 00:39:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080512.213925.193699728.davem@davemloft.net> To: drepper@redhat.com Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, davidel@xmailserver.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] flag parameters: check magic constants From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <48291749.1060400@redhat.com> References: <482910FA.1080703@redhat.com> <20080512.210225.167924945.davem@davemloft.net> <48291749.1060400@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Ulrich Drepper Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:21:29 -0700 > Is MIPS really a problem? The value is 0x80. 128 protocol types should > be enough. Even if not, there is no reason why the numbers should be > consecutive. It's easy enough to skip over a bit. I.e., after procotol > 0x7f the next one would be 0x100. Indeed, MIPS looks good. > And PA seems to have gotten O_NONBLOCK wrong. SPARC does it right AFAICS. I agree. But that value is compiled into every parisc binary out there, limiting what we can do about it in the short term.