* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
[not found] <5kCbe-45z-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
@ 2005-12-17 10:28 ` Bodo Eggert
2005-12-17 18:29 ` Lee Revell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bodo Eggert @ 2005-12-17 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
>
> Is there any reason against removing it completely?
Maybe embedded systems.
--
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-17 10:28 ` remove CONFIG_UID16 Bodo Eggert
@ 2005-12-17 18:29 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-21 22:33 ` Jan Engelhardt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Lee Revell @ 2005-12-17 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 7eggert; +Cc: Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 11:28 +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>
> > It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> > disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
> >
> > Is there any reason against removing it completely?
>
> Maybe embedded systems.
The comments in the code say it's for backwards compatibility:
(from include/linux/highuid.h)
*
* CONFIG_UID16 is defined if the given architecture needs to
* support backwards compatibility for old system calls.
*
This implies that removing it would break some applications, right?
Lee
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-17 18:29 ` Lee Revell
@ 2005-12-21 22:33 ` Jan Engelhardt
2005-12-21 23:23 ` Lee Revell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2005-12-21 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lee Revell; +Cc: 7eggert, Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
>> > It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
>> > disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
>> >
>> > Is there any reason against removing it completely?
>>
>> Maybe embedded systems.
>
>The comments in the code say it's for backwards compatibility:
>
>(from include/linux/highuid.h)
>
> *
> * CONFIG_UID16 is defined if the given architecture needs to
> * support backwards compatibility for old system calls.
> *
>
>This implies that removing it would break some applications, right?
So what are the most recent apps that still use them, and for what kernel
were they originally designed?
Jan Engelhardt
--
| Alphagate Systems, http://alphagate.hopto.org/
| jengelh's site, http://jengelh.hopto.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-21 22:33 ` Jan Engelhardt
@ 2005-12-21 23:23 ` Lee Revell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Lee Revell @ 2005-12-21 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Engelhardt; +Cc: 7eggert, Adrian Bunk, linux-kernel
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 23:33 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> > It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> >> > disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any reason against removing it completely?
> >>
> >> Maybe embedded systems.
> >
> >The comments in the code say it's for backwards compatibility:
> >
> >(from include/linux/highuid.h)
> >
> > *
> > * CONFIG_UID16 is defined if the given architecture needs to
> > * support backwards compatibility for old system calls.
> > *
> >
> >This implies that removing it would break some applications, right?
>
>
> So what are the most recent apps that still use them, and for what kernel
> were they originally designed?
I don't think this is a productive line of reasoning, even if we could
not identify one such app. We should not break user visible APIs
without a compelling reason.
Lee
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-17 18:38 ` Adrian Bunk
@ 2005-12-22 22:12 ` Bill Davidsen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bill Davidsen @ 2005-12-22 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk, Linux Kernel Mailing List
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 05:44:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>>It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
>>>disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
>>>
>>>Is there any reason against removing it completely?
>>
>>Yes, it breaks backwards-compatilbity for not even that old binaries.
>>
>>There's not way we're ever going to remove it.
>
>
> You are right.
>
> Sorry, this was a dumb idea
The question is, did you prove that (a) the people who need it are smart
enough to set it, or (b) the people who need it are not testing -mm kernels.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-17 4:44 Adrian Bunk
2005-12-17 13:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2005-12-17 19:54 ` Matt Mackall
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Matt Mackall @ 2005-12-17 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 05:44:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
Hmm, did I break it?
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-17 13:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
@ 2005-12-17 18:38 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-12-22 22:12 ` Bill Davidsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2005-12-17 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christoph Hellwig, linux-kernel, Matt Mackall
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 01:18:07PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 05:44:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> > disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
> >
> > Is there any reason against removing it completely?
>
> Yes, it breaks backwards-compatilbity for not even that old binaries.
>
> There's not way we're ever going to remove it.
You are right.
Sorry, this was a dumb idea
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: remove CONFIG_UID16
2005-12-17 4:44 Adrian Bunk
@ 2005-12-17 13:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-17 18:38 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-12-17 19:54 ` Matt Mackall
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Christoph Hellwig @ 2005-12-17 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: linux-kernel, Matt Mackall
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 05:44:10AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
> disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
>
> Is there any reason against removing it completely?
Yes, it breaks backwards-compatilbity for not even that old binaries.
There's not way we're ever going to remove it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* remove CONFIG_UID16
@ 2005-12-17 4:44 Adrian Bunk
2005-12-17 13:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-17 19:54 ` Matt Mackall
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2005-12-17 4:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Matt Mackall
It seems noone noticed that CONFIG_UID16 was accidentially always
disabled in the latest -mm kernels.
Is there any reason against removing it completely?
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-12-22 22:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <5kCbe-45z-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
2005-12-17 10:28 ` remove CONFIG_UID16 Bodo Eggert
2005-12-17 18:29 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-21 22:33 ` Jan Engelhardt
2005-12-21 23:23 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-17 4:44 Adrian Bunk
2005-12-17 13:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-17 18:38 ` Adrian Bunk
2005-12-22 22:12 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-12-17 19:54 ` Matt Mackall
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).