From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759791Ab0JHVug (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:50:36 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33782 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755303Ab0JHVuf (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:50:35 -0400 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Organization: SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. To: David Daney Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7 Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:50:00 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.34-12-desktop; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Eric Paris , Alan Cox , Tvrtko Ursulin , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <201010081406.10190.agruen@suse.de> <4CAF47F3.3070800@caviumnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <4CAF47F3.3070800@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010082350.01135.agruen@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 08 October 2010 18:33:55 David Daney wrote: > On 10/08/2010 05:06 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On Thursday 07 October 2010 19:49:28 Eric Paris wrote: > >> The safest thing would probably be to punt the syscalls to 2.6.37. > >> Which is sad since I know a number of people are already working against > >> them, but maybe that proves it's the best approach? > > > > I agree with removing the syscalls from 2.6.36 because of the following > > reasons: > > How would the mechanics of this be achieved? > > Is it enough to just unconditionally return -ENOSYS from the sys_*() > functions? Or should all the patches be reverted? Whatever works I guess ... they would get reactivated pretty soon, anyway. Andreas