-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted text
> Uli: The question at hand is what syscalls a new linux architecture
> should implement. To take utimes() as an example, the kernel currently
> has utime(), utimes(), futimesat() and utimensat(), while glibc
> provides utime(), utimes(), futimes(), futimesat(), futimens() and
> utimensat(). In theory, all the glibc interfaces could be provided
> on top of the utimensat() syscall, but should they?

Yes, this is how it should be.  It's not done because no architecture
glibc officially supports arrived after these and similar syscalls
arrived.  There is no need to implement the not-*at interface, no need
to implement the creat syscall, etc etc.

- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIHItI2ijCOnn/RHQRAm+9AJ4zGHVzNxgt9Zbrf0Uj27n4AQH6LACfVpIC
qYnU0uBg3he4hKx0cujQQ7U=
=ozRC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/