Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi!

Hi Oliver!

> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).

Why did your numbers differ from the numbers that were used in the 
upstream kernel?

The Alpha maintainers (Cc's added) might now better what happened here.

> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following:
>...

These syscalls were added in 2.6.22, not 2.6.23, and are therefore in 
the officially released kernel since more than two months.

Changing a userspace ABI that has already been part of an officially 
released kernel because someone patched other syscall numbers into his 
private kernel doesn't sound like a good solution.

> Best,
>  Oliver

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/