From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752209Ab2GZBma (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:42:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48696 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751485Ab2GZBm3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:42:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:42:14 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Ben Hutchings , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , law@redhat.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix_types.h: Cleanup stale __NFDBITS and related definitions Message-ID: <20120726014213.GB2356@zod.bos.redhat.com> References: <20120725144033.GK10534@zod.bos.redhat.com> <1343258796.5132.164.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20120726012713.GA2356@zod.bos.redhat.com> <20120726013322.GB3532@burratino> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120726013322.GB3532@burratino> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:33:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi, > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Indeed. However, I believe Linus pointed out that even before > > 8b3d1cda4f5f the macros that were removed weren't actually used. > > It's likely safe to go back further than just 3.4. > > > > I'll verify again in the morning and include the furthest back we could > > remove these. For now, let's go with what you suggest to be safe. > > I may be in the minority in having this view or missing a subtlety, > but shouldn't the question be the furthest back we need to remove > these rather than the furthest back we could? That should be the question, yes. The answer is: However far back people wish to use older stable kernel-headers to build applications against newer glibc. It isn't a clear answer. Some people stick with older kernels while they update their userspace. I was thinking along the lines of the 3.0 kernel being the oldest I'd check for but if people think we shouldn't bother than that's fine by me. josh