From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755200AbbITKi4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:38:56 -0400 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.10]:48066 "EHLO mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754833AbbITKiy (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:38:54 -0400 X-Auth-Info: HzIsWgsbcsqFNJfVFFmlVm27E5jLU2BCsWsEXhkBCnLFMPIY8R9bt3ds6hT6ZtK9 From: Andreas Schwab To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Greg Ungerer , "Linux\/m68k" , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , Linux-Arch , Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Drop IPC_OLD for direct ipc syscalls? References: X-Yow: Yow! I'm out of work...I could go into shock absorbers...or SCUBA GEAR!! Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 12:38:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Geert Uytterhoeven's message of "Sun, 20 Sep 2015 11:07:28 +0200") Message-ID: <87pp1dv0i1.fsf@igel.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > Should I postpone wiring up the direct ipc syscalls on m68k (and thus renumber > __NR_membarrier) until the above is resolved, or can they go in in v4.3? If you wire up the direct ipc calls know you create an ABI that is harder to get rid of. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."