Hi,
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 07:56:27AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:27:03AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > yes, but the damage has been done already, and now we've got to start the
> > slow wait for the old syscall to flush out of our tree.
>
> Actually it should go away before 2.6.0. sys_futex never was part of a
> released stable kernel so having the old_ version around is silly. I
> Think it's enough time until 2.6 hits the roads for people to have those
> vendor libc flushed out that use it. (and sys_futex still isn't used
> in the glibc CVS, only in the addon nptl package with pre-1 release
> numbers.)
This sounds reasonable. The people who shipped that already to
customers have so heavily patched kernels, that this simple patch
for the old sys_futex shouldn't really matter.
But cluttering the kernel with an API/ABI that was born in the
same development cycle, where it has been obsoleted sounds not
worth the bytes it consumes. And so we have a syscall slot
available for the next development cycle.
Or did anybody promise that this was final already? Usally this
promise comes with x.even.y not with x.odd.y .
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:40 EST