Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
Right now "flags" doesn't do anything at all, and you should just pass in
zero.
In that case perhaps we should be enforcing flags==0 so that future
flags-using applications will reliably fail on old flags-not-understanding
kernels.
But that won't work if we later define a bit in flags to mean "behave like
old kernels used to". So perhaps we should require that bits 0-15 of
`flags' be zero and not care about bits 16-31.
IOW: it might be best to make `flags' just go away, and add new syscalls in
the future as appropriate.
Well it is always going to transfer data from infd to outfd, isn't it?
If something comes up that does not do that, then that should be a new
syscall rather than a new flag.
flags just modify the manner of the transfer I think. Things should still
work if some flag is not supported, perhaps just not with optimal
performance. That said, unsupported flags probably should fail, shouldn't
they? The application / library could then retry with flags = 0.
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
