Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:24:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:24:02 -0500 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com ([12.107.208.154]:7614 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:23:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3C2772B1.3080202@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:23:45 -0500 From: Doug Ledford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.6+) Gecko/20011217 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Lang CC: Alan Cox , Keith Owens , Benjamin LaHaise , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Lang wrote: > so this just means that an eye needs to be kept on the non-dynamic > syscalls and up the starting point for dynamic syscalls significantly > before we run out of space for the non-dynamic ones. > > running software that depends on features in a new kernel on a > significantly older kernel is always questionable, if you software really > needs to do that you need to watch for a bunch of things. No. This is different. Calling a syscall and expecting to get either A) the syscall you intended or B) -ENOSYS is an accepted, safe practice under Unix/Linux. This breaks that practice. -- Doug Ledford http://people.redhat.com/dledford Please check my web site for aic7xxx updates/answers before e-mailing me about problems - 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/