Re: Why is CONFIG_FHANDLE an option??

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:14:02AM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I just configured a new kernel based on a recent git checkout and when I 
> had copied in my old configuration and did a "make oldconfig"I was greeted 
> with
> 
>     open by fhandle syscalls (FHANDLE) [N/y/?] (NEW)
> 
> Ok, so I read the help text description and learn that it's about two new 
> syscalls - open_by_handle_at(2) and name_to_handle_at(2).
> 
> My first thought at this point was "why are new syscalls even an option"?
> 
> Syscalls are in my oppinion ABI - having optional syscalls is just about 
> as bad as removing a syscall. It basically means that users cannot know if 
> the syscall is there and will need to test (it's bad enough having to 
> check the kernel version, having to check for specific syscalls as well 
> is just, well, annoying at best). 
> 
> Why are we making these optional?

Why not?  Software needs to test *anyway*, since it might run on earlier
kernels.  And "does that syscall return -ENOSYS" is self-documenting,
while "is the version higher than $MAGIC_NUMBER" is *not*.  Especially since
there's such thing as backports.

If you need to check that syscall is there, _check_ _it_.  Don't breed
dependencies on version numbers.