[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070322162827.GA31143@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:28:27 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.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, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:25:53PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.
I kept i386 as default so all is good.
Sam
-
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