On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:16:24PM +0100, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 06:15:37PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 
> > 3. In 3.2.6, mention that we usually implement the older version of the
> >    syscall in libc so that we can provide binary compatibility for
> >    dynamically linked libraries without needing the kernel support.
> 
> This was already there.

I think this is a highly misleading explanation anyway.  We implement
the older version of the syscall in libc because we are afraid to bump
the libc major number, and thus we *must* provide every function that
was ever present there.

Thor