|From:||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|To:||ebiederm-AT-xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.|
|Date:||Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:19:27 -0800|
|Cc:||torvalds-AT-osdl.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, janak-AT-us.ibm.com, viro-AT-ftp.linux.org.uk, hch-AT-lst.de, mtk-manpages-AT-gmx.net, ak-AT-muc.de, paulus-AT-samba.org|
email@example.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> > >> iirc there was some discussion about this and it was explicitly decided to > >> keep the CLONE flags. > >> > >> Maybe Janak or Linus can comment? > > > > My personal opinion is that having a different set of flags is more > > confusing and likely to result in problems later than having the same > > ones. Regardless, I'm not touching this for 2.6.16 any more, > > I am actually a lot more concerned with the fact that we don't test > for invalid bits. So we have an ABI that will change in the future, > and that doesn't allow us to have a program that runs on old and new > kernels. The risk of breaking things is small - it would require someone to write a sys_unshare-using app which a) they care about and b) has a particular bug in it. But yes, we should check. > I guess I can resend some version of my patch after 2.6.16 is out and > break the ABI for the undefined bits then. Correct programs shouldn't > care. But it sure would be nice if they could care. > Your single patch did two different things - there's a lesson here ;)
Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds