Re: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)

[Matt Mackall]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:36:41PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >>There are more ancient system calls, like old_stat and oldolduname.
> > >>Do we want separate options for each system call that is obsoleted?
> > >>
> > >IMO, no, we do not.
> > 
> > how about something like the embedded, experimental, and broken options. 
> > that way normal users can disable all of them at a stroke, people who need 
> > them can add them in.
> 
> Thats just not an option - you would have zillions of config options. 
> 
> Moreover this is a system call, and the system call interface is one of the few 
> supposed to be stable. You shouldnt simply assume that "no one will ever use sys_uselib()" - 
> there might be programs out there who use it.
> 
> I agree with Andries.

In -tiny, I've added config options for disabling _many_ syscalls (but
not this one). They all go under EMBEDDED. And then I changed the
description of EMBEDDED to imply that changing anything takes you into
nonstandard, unsupported territory.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/