Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422752Ab2KNMcB (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:32:01 -0500 Received: from multi.imgtec.com ([194.200.65.239]:54475 "EHLO multi.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161219Ab2KNMcA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:32:00 -0500 Message-ID: <50A38F12.8030501@imgtec.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:31:14 +0000 From: James Hogan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Jonas Bonn , Vineet Gupta , , , , Markos Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 14/31] ARC: syscall support References: <1352281674-2186-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <50A23906.6010900@imgtec.com> <201211141223.05063.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201211141223.05063.arnd@arndb.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.65] X-SEF-Processed: 7_3_0_01181__2012_11_14_12_31_58 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1467 Lines: 33 On 14/11/12 12:23, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2012, James Hogan wrote: >> Hopefully with several architecture maintainers asking for this it might >> get somewhere, but indeed we're aware of the feedback problem on that list. >> >> The points that I've considered for defaulting to old syscalls: >> * doesn't change existing behaviour of other architectures, so is simply >> less risk of breaking them. >> * could possibly make uClibc slightly smaller if it doesn't have to add >> extra arguments. > > The second argument is not very good when you consider that it means adding > the same wrapper into the kernel rather than into uClibc, where it can > be stripped out when unused (e.g. for static compilation) and doesn't > have to be present in memory since the library is in pageable user space > memory, while the kernel side implementation would always have to > present. The context is existing architectures which already have to support the deprecated syscalls pretty much forever (in addition to the new ones), and therefore can't strip out the kernel side implementation anyway. I don't see any of these arguments (either way) as holding too much weight to be honest though. Cheers James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/