From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:10:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] Add key management syscalls to non-i386 archs Message-Id: <20041021001041.GI995@wotan.suse.de> List-Id: References: <3506.1098283455@redhat.com> <20041020150149.7be06d6d.davem@davemloft.net> <20041020225625.GD995@wotan.suse.de> <20041020160450.0914270b.davem@davemloft.net> <20041020232509.GF995@wotan.suse.de> <20041020164144.3457eafe.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20041020164144.3457eafe.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "David S. Miller" Cc: Andi Kleen , 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 Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:41:44PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:25:09 +0200 > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > IMHO breaking the build unnecessarily is extremly bad because > > it will prevent all testing. And would you really want to hold > > up the whole linux testing machinery just for some obscure > > system call? IMHO not a good tradeoff. > > Then change the unistd.h cookie from "#error" to a "#warning". It > accomplishes both of our goals. #warnings would be fine for me. -Andi