[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804242337.53681.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:37:52 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Michal Simek <Monstr@...nam.cz>
Cc: Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, git@...inx.com,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au
Subject: Re: microblaze syscall list
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> here is current syscall table - I only rewrite your changes. I remove sys_ni_syscall except from #ifdefs.
> I would like to match syscalls to logical block. Can I do it? (I'll fix unistd.h later)
yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. If we introduce a new
asm-generic/unistd.h, it's good to have it sorted in some
meaningful way, even if it is going to get messier over time.
> Can you look at it if I remove old syscalls?
> I will continue tomorrow I am tired.
ok, I'll look at it tomorrow.
>
> #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SIGNAL
> .long sys_signal
> #else
> .long sys_ni_syscall
> #endif
> #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_TIME
> .long sys_time
> .long sys_stime
> #else
> .long sys_ni_syscall
> .long sys_ni_syscall
> #endif
I guess I wasn't entirely clear with what I mean referring to
__ARCH_WANT_SYS_*. Instead of adding the #ifdef here, I meant
you should just remove the call entirely. With a few exceptions
that I already mentioned, the fact that there is an __ARCH_WANT
check in the syscall definition means that new architectures
should not reference the call, nor #define the __ARCH_WANT macro.
Arnd <><
--
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