On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:52:21 -0400 (EDT)
Cal Peake <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > There's apparently some library functions that has used it in the past,
> > and I've seen a few effects of that:
> >
> > warning: process `wish' used the removed sysctl system call
> >
> > but the users all had fallback positions, so I don't think anything
> > actually broke.
>
> Agreed, nothing seems to have broken by removing it but the warnings sure
> are ugly. Is there any reason to have them? If a program relies on sysctl
> and the call fails the program should properly handle the error. That
> should be all the warning that's needed (i.e. report the broken program
> and get it fixed).
We should have added the sysctl numbers to that warning.
Lots of things do sysctl(KERN_VERSION), including FC5's date(1). Andi's
proposal to put some hard-wired KERN_VERSION emulator in there sounds
reasonable to me, depending upon how many other things we'll need to
emulate (which we don't know yet).
> > (The situation may be different with older libraries, which is why it's
> > still an option to compile in sysctl. None of the machines I had access
> > to cared at all, though).
>
> So leave it as is for now, default to off with option to compile in if
> EMBEDDED and then remove it completely in a few months?
It should always be an objective to remove code if we can feasibly find a
way to do so. For us to give up now and to leave all that goop in there
forever would be sad.
A patch which enhances that printk would be appreciated...
-
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]
