Re: [patch] remove hugetlb syscalls

[Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>]

Oracle does not run as root, so they can't even use the syscalls 
directly.  At least with hugetlbfs we can chmod the filesystem to be 
owned by the oracle user.

		-ben

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:02:20PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:30:35PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> The main reason I haven't considered doing this is because they already
> >> got in and there appears to be a user (Oracle/IA64).
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:48:09PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > Not in shipping code.  Certainly no vendor kernels that I am aware of 
> > have shipped these syscalls yet either, as nearly all of the developers 
> > find them revolting.  Not to mention that the code cleanups and bugfixes 
> > are still ongoing.
> 
> This is a bit out of my hands; the support decision came from elsewhere.
> I have to service my users first, and after that, I don't generally want
> to stand in the way of others. In general it's good to have minimalistic
> interfaces, but I'm not a party to the concerns regarding the syscalls.
> My direct involvement there has been either of a kernel janitor nature,
> helping to adapt it to Linux kernel idioms, or reusing code for hugetlbfs.
> 
> I guess the only real statement left to make is that hugetlbfs (or my
> participation/implementation of it) was not originally intended to
> compete with the syscalls, though there's a lot of obvious overlap
> (which I tried to exploit by means of code reuse).
> 
> Bill

-- 
"Do you seek knowledge in time travel?"
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/