linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:37:25 +0900
From:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open when supported

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 06:48:52AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:29, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If the port does not support HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS, then they can't support
> > the perf_counter_open syscall either. ??Rather than forcing everyone to add
> > an ignore (or suffer the warning until they get around to implementing
> > support), only whine about the syscall when applicable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
> 
> Andrew: could you pick this up since Ingo acked it now ?

I fail to see why this is necessary? cond_syscall() takes care of this in
the not implemented case, the same as every other syscall backing some
feature that has yet to be implemented.
--
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/