Re: New getsockopt2() syscall

2018-06-09 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
On 08.06.2018 23:18, Robert Swindells wrote: > > Are there any objections to the code for a getsockopt2() syscall > in: > > > Can we reuse unused old syscall numbers? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: New getsockopt2() syscall

2018-06-09 Thread Martin Husemann
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 10:22:06AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > Can we reuse unused old syscall numbers? Reuse in general not (that would break any possible compat for that). But there are some unused numbers like 193 and 267-269. Martin

Re: New getsockopt2() syscall

2018-06-09 Thread Christos Zoulas
On Jun 9, 2:20pm, r...@fdy2.co.uk (Robert Swindells) wrote: -- Subject: Re: New getsockopt2() syscall | What is the best way to provide it for review, diffs or the complete | page ? Either way. I think that the complete man page is not too long (I just looked). christos

Re: New getsockopt2() syscall

2018-06-09 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>Are there any objections to the code for a getsockopt2() syscall >>in: >> >> > >Let's write the man page to see if it makes sense :-) What

Re: New getsockopt2() syscall

2018-06-09 Thread Robert Swindells
Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >On 08.06.2018 23:18, Robert Swindells wrote: >> >> Are there any objections to the code for a getsockopt2() syscall >> in: >> >> >> > >Can we reuse unused old syscall numbers? Why ? We are not going t

Re: New getsockopt2() syscall

2018-06-09 Thread Kamil Rytarowski
On 09.06.2018 16:05, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 10:22:06AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> Can we reuse unused old syscall numbers? > > Reuse in general not (that would break any possible compat for that). > But there are some unused numbers like 193 and 267-269. > > Marti