Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Anyway, that's a separate story - semctl(2) is going to be ugly, no matter
> what we do, but the rest of those guys doesn't have to.  How about the
> following (completely untested):

Hmm.  Looks like the RightThing(tm) to me.

The thing that stands out that I question the value of that
HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS thing. Is there any reason we don't just make
all architectures use it? What's the downside? I'm not sure I see the
point of the non-wrapper version.

                  Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/