"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:

quoted text
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:
>>
>>> Umm, no way we're ever going to remove a syscall like this.
>>
>> If someone besides me cares about more then rhetoric I will be happy
>> to reconsider and several years is plenty of time to find that out.
>>
>> I aborted the removal last time precisely because we had not done an
>> adequate job of warning our users.  A printk when we run a program
>> that uses the binary interface and an long enough interval the warning
>> makes it to the Enterprise kernels before we remove the interface
>> should be sufficient.
>>
>
> glibc uses it, and it uses it in contexts where access to the filesystem isn't
> functional (e.g. in chroot.)

Yes.  But (a) It doesn't affect correctness what answer it gets back.
          (b) It should be using uname.

Or are you thinking about something besides the pthreads usage?

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