> My issue with this is that we're reserving part of a number space
> that cannot be endlessly expanded without cost for the sole
> benefit of vendors that may or may not provide useful feedback
> to NetBSD...  I'm thinking what big picture thing does making
> this reservation serve?

A variation on this would be to make both syscalls 254 and 255 be
the "expansion" calls - 255 would be the expansion syscall for
NetBSD, 254 for vendor-local calls; this only uses up one reserved
syscall in the "base" syscall list, while giving vendors as much
expansion room as they'd be likely to need.