From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751902Ab1E2Ity (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2011 04:49:54 -0400 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.5]:45458 "EHLO duck.linux-mips.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750779Ab1E2Itw (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 May 2011 04:49:52 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 09:49:40 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH] ns: Wire up the setns system call for 2.6.40-rc1 or whatever Message-ID: <20110529084940.GA26714@linux-mips.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:55:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: > > > > 32bit and 64bit on x86 are tested and working.  The rest I have looked > > at closely and I can't find any problems. > > So I really don't think this was even worth it. I applied the patch, > but I think that you should just have done the architecture you > tested, and left it to arch maintainers to add it as they will. > > That's how we tend to do this, and it works. It also avoids surprises > when people then invariably end up having clashes due to system calls > being added. Even in just the 15 hours since you sent the email, I had > merged more code from ARM, and the patch no longer applied to my tree. > It's trivial to fix up, so that's not the problem, but the problem is > with different people adding system calls resulting in re-numbering. Which just happened on MIPS; I had a conflict between sendmmsg and sysns. People other than the maintainer adding new syscalls routinely goes wrong for this or other reasons. > In other words, it's simply better to strive to have *one* entity in > charge of picking the system call number, rather than do it like this. > Ergo: leave it to architecture maintainers to minimize the issue of > system call renumbering. Amen. Ralf