From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932201Ab0JHQey (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:34:54 -0400 Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com ([12.108.191.235]:16654 "EHLO mail3.caviumnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754080Ab0JHQew (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:34:52 -0400 Message-ID: <4CAF47F3.3070800@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:33:55 -0700 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100907 Fedora/3.0.7-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andreas Gruenbacher CC: Eric Paris , Alan Cox , Tvrtko Ursulin , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.36-rc7 References: <20101007190741.2dc62626@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1286473768.2656.21.camel@dhcp231-98.rdu.redhat.com> <201010081406.10190.agruen@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <201010081406.10190.agruen@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2010 16:34:05.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FB31710:01CB6706] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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