Re: [PATCH v2] unify sys_pipe implementation

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 11:40 am

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

No, definitely not.

That said, I think that in order to not break other architectures, and to 
make it even easier to do this transformation, how about we just mark the 
generic version with __weak?

That way, odd architectures can just continue to call their own versions 
"sys_pipe()", and we don't break them unnecessarily.

		Linus
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH v2] unify sys_pipe implementation, Ulrich Drepper, (Sat May 3, 11:01 am)
Re: [PATCH v2] unify sys_pipe implementation, Linus Torvalds, (Sat May 3, 11:40 am)
Re: [PATCH v2] unify sys_pipe implementation, Michael Kerrisk, (Mon May 5, 2:15 am)
Re: [PATCH v2] unify sys_pipe implementation, Ralf Baechle, (Mon May 5, 3:18 am)