[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090825195203.GB8215@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:52:06 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
jiayingz@...gle.com, mbligh@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] add syscall tracepoints V3 - s390 arch update
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 04:39:51PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 03:52:32PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 02:31:11PM +0200, Hendrik Brueckner wrote:
> > > meta = find_syscall_meta((unsigned long)sys_call_table[i]);
> > > syscalls_metadata[i] = meta;
> > > }
> > We can even probably move most of this code to the core, expect the tiny parts
> > that rely on the arch syscall table.
> >
> > BTW, perhaps a silly question: would it be hard to have a generic syscall table
> > common to every archs?
>
> That would cause a lot of churn. Every architecture initializes the syscall
> table (two tables if CONFIG_COMPAT is enabled) differently.
> s390 also only uses 32 bit pointers in the system call table for 64 bit
> kernels, since we know that the functions are within the first 4GB.
> I don't think its worth the effort.
Ok.
Well I remembered about some projects of a unified syscall table but may be
it has been given up for such reasons.
--
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