| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:25:53 +0000 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 12:41 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > Yep - realized this when I took a closer look. > One thing striked my mind. It is correct that new things gets added > to i386 first these days? Personally I tend to do PowerPC first, but most others seem to do i386, yes. There are still system calls being added to i386 and not x86_64... init/missing_syscalls.h:947:3: warning: #warning syscall getcpu not implemented init/missing_syscalls.h:950:3: warning: #warning syscall epoll_pwait not implemented init/missing_syscalls.h:953:3: warning: #warning syscall lutimesat not implemented init/missing_syscalls.h:956:3: warning: #warning syscall revokeat not implemented init/missing_syscalls.h:959:3: warning: #warning syscall frevoke not implemented > To me it looks like x86_64 is growing larger than i386 among the > developers these days so using asm-x86_64/unistd.h could be a better > choice? Or perhaps the union of i386, x86_64 and powerpc. But I think i386 is good enough for now. -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists