On Tuesday 28 August 2007 8:31:45 pm H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this.
> >
> > If someone besides me cares about more then rhetoric I will be happy
> > to reconsider and several years is plenty of time to find that out.
> >
> > I aborted the removal last time precisely because we had not done an
> > adequate job of warning our users. A printk when we run a program
> > that uses the binary interface and an long enough interval the warning
> > makes it to the Enterprise kernels before we remove the interface
> > should be sufficient.
>
> glibc uses it, and it uses it in contexts where access to the filesystem
> isn't functional (e.g. in chroot.)
A lot of embedded people like to configure /proc out of the kernel for space
reasons. This would make that noticeably more painful.
(If sysctlfs wasn't part of proc, that would be less of an issue, but we need
union mounts for that...)
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
-
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]
