On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch <
bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote:

On Son, 2011-03-20 at 13:08 +0530, mohit verma wrote: [...]

quoted

I think it should be there in kernel not because it is my idea but for
good reasons (personally think so).

... and despite IMHO good reason for not including.
But talk is cheap so prepare and propose a working prototype as patch
and we will see the reaction from others.

  thanks  a lot Bernd. I am gonna do it.

I'm not strong against it but I do not see any significant advantage but

at least one open question and the burden to all which do not need/use
it[0].

ad "POSIX compliance": Well, there are lots of system calls (in the
Linux kernel) which are not in POSIX (or SuSv3 or ...) - plain simply
because they are newer than these "standards" or out of the scope of
them.
And (on Linux with and/or without GNU-libc) some system-calls (or
whatever POSIX calls them) are "only" libc functions which are
transformed into other, real existing system-calls.

Bernd

[0]: And that is partly due to my embedded background where you strive
    to make everything small and avoid bloat;-)
--
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at
                    LUGA : http://www.luga.at

-- 
........................
*MOHIT VERMA*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20110321/11bd9a26/attachment.html