From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:32:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:32:09 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:13310 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 May 2002 13:32:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:31:07 -0500 From: Dave McCracken To: Michael Sinz cc: Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] POSIX personality Message-ID: <66450000.1022607067@baldur.austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <3CF3BDC4.8030401@wgate.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 01:26:28 PM -0400 Michael Sinz wrote: >> I've been thinking along those lines myself. At this point I'd suggest >> we implement them as separate, then if in the future no one ever uses >> them separately we can consider combining them. I know this can raise >> some backward compatibility issues but in theory if anyone cares we >> wouldn't do it. > > I would be worried about the future compatibility here. It would be > easier to be compatible to start with a single bit and then add > individual bits for those features that need to be broken out when it is > know to be needed. Folding the bits back in is not as easy as you now > have to still support the individual but yet unneeded. That's a good point. But at this point I don't see any items where we can say up front that everyone will want all or none of them. I suspect we'll just have to live with them as separate flags. Dave ====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059