From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754299Ab0AHW2J (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:28:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754218Ab0AHW2H (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:28:07 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:45652 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752564Ab0AHW2G (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:28:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4B47B031.5000406@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:22:41 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Al Viro , Matthew Wilcox , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, tony.luck@intel.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org, gerg@uclinux.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, jdike@addtoit.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] generic sys_old_select References: <20100106172112.GA17163@lst.de> <20100106173258.GJ9882@parisc-linux.org> <20100106173438.GA17660@lst.de> <20100106174109.GA30528@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20100108093137.GA28722@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20100108093137.GA28722@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/08/2010 01:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:41:09PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: >> Actually, I'd be a lot happier if we had lib/syscall/old_select.c, instead >> of cluttering fs/select.c with that. Objections? > > If we do that let's do it consistantly for various old syscalls, not > an odd one out. Yes, and it would be a good idea to do so, rather than hiding all these compatibility calls in all kind of random places. There is, however, a reason *not* to do it which should be carefully considered: by co-locating the compatibility version with the modern version, it gets access to static functions that are part of the implementation of the modern version. If we move the compatibility versions out, it may entail having to export those statics. -hpa