From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:33:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4CAF47F3.3070800@caviumnetworks.com>
References: <AANLkTi=LsBNU+O2hqZUcM2nYM_ze6qPq3thwSZBMtY_v@mail.gmail.com> <20101007190741.2dc62626@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286473768.2656.21.camel@dhcp231-98.rdu.redhat.com> <201010081406.10190.agruen@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <201010081406.10190.agruen@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

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?

David Daney