From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751062AbWCPWR2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:17:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750866AbWCPWR2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:17:28 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:35524 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750713AbWCPWR1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:17:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:19:27 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, janak@us.ibm.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, mtk-manpages@gmx.net, ak@muc.de, paulus@samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed. Message-Id: <20060316141927.50aabbc2.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20060316123341.0f55fd07.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-vine-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> > >> iirc there was some discussion about this and it was explicitly decided to > >> keep the CLONE flags. > >> > >> Maybe Janak or Linus can comment? > > > > My personal opinion is that having a different set of flags is more > > confusing and likely to result in problems later than having the same > > ones. Regardless, I'm not touching this for 2.6.16 any more, > > I am actually a lot more concerned with the fact that we don't test > for invalid bits. So we have an ABI that will change in the future, > and that doesn't allow us to have a program that runs on old and new > kernels. The risk of breaking things is small - it would require someone to write a sys_unshare-using app which a) they care about and b) has a particular bug in it. But yes, we should check. > I guess I can resend some version of my patch after 2.6.16 is out and > break the ABI for the undefined bits then. Correct programs shouldn't > care. But it sure would be nice if they could care. > Your single patch did two different things - there's a lesson here ;)