From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261179AbVF1T7m (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:59:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261232AbVF1T7I (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:59:08 -0400 Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.10.83]:61573 "EHLO smtp.andrew.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261179AbVF1T6M (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:58:12 -0400 From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Read only syscall tables for x86_64 and i386 In-Reply-To: <20050628194215.GB32240@infradead.org> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:42:15 +0100") Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:52:50 -0400 References: <87oe9q70no.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <87hdfi704d.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> <20050628194215.GB32240@infradead.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring Message-ID: <87vf3y2qzz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 12:31:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote: >> >> > It would probably be better implemented with a more generic mechanism, >> > but I don't believe anyone is working on that now, so it looks like AFS >> > will continue to use a special syscall. >> >> We could put an #ifdef CONFIG_AFS into the syscall table definition? >> That makes it explicit. > No. AFS is utterly wrong, and the sooner we make it fail to work the > better. Heh, well that is nice, but breaking it will only mean that I and every other AFS user will have to revert the patch that breaks it; furthermore, many distributions that provide binary kernels will probably also have to revert the patch because many of their users will want to use AFS. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard