Subject: Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>
Cc: 7eggert@gmx.de, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0512212332450.605@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
References: <5kCbe-45z-7@gated-at.bofh.it>  <E1EnZIZ-0003Px-3c@be1.lrz>
	 <1134844168.11227.3.camel@mindpipe>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0512212332450.605@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:23:43 -0500
Message-Id: <1135207424.31433.19.camel@mindpipe>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1132
Lines: 34

On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 23:33 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> > It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> >> > disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
> >> > 
> >> > Is there any reason against removing it completely?
> >> 
> >> Maybe embedded systems.
> >
> >The comments in the code say it's for backwards compatibility:
> >
> >(from include/linux/highuid.h)
> >
> > *
> > * CONFIG_UID16 is defined if the given architecture needs to
> > * support backwards compatibility for old system calls.
> > *
> >
> >This implies that removing it would break some applications, right?
> 
> 
> So what are the most recent apps that still use them, and for what kernel 
> were they originally designed?

I don't think this is a productive line of reasoning, even if we could
not identify one such app.  We should not break user visible APIs
without a compelling reason.

Lee

-
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/